The People's Court - General Discussion

[DoctorK]

20 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Christy signed a promissory note 2 weeks after the purchase, which JM voids and I didn't quite understand why.

I also looked at that as BS. JM just decided that this was yet another case of a poor innocent little girl victimized by an evil older man. Doing her imitation of Corriero on hot bench.

[AngelaHunter]

48 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

I also looked at that as BS. JM just decided that this was yet another case of a poor innocent little girl victimized by an evil older man. Doing her imitation of Corriero on hot bench.

I really don't get it, but I'm certainly no lawyer and don't know the particulars of the legalities. Shouldn't a promissory note signed by a competent, mature adult be seen for what it is - a promise to pay - even if signed after the actual transaction is done? I was surprised "coercion" didn't come up.  Yeah, poor little church-going, single mother felt pressured, I guess. As if.

[Katy M]

1 minute ago, AngelaHunter said:

I really don't get it, but I'm certainly no lawyer and don't know the particulars of the legalities. Shouldn't a promissory note signed by a competent, mature adult be seen for what it is - a promise to pay - even if signed after the actual transaction is done? I was surprised "coercion" didn't come up.  Yeah, poor little church-going, single mother felt pressured, I guess. As if.

 I remember something about IOUs from my business law class.  Basically they are worthless because they just say that you owe the money, but doesn't say you're going to pay it.  Just a little factoid that stayed in my head because it sounded bizarre.  So, this probably has something to do with wording.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Katy M said:

 I remember something about IOUs from my business law class.  Basically they are worthless because they just say that you owe the money, but doesn't say you're going to pay it.  Just a little factoid that stayed in my head because it sounded bizarre.  So, this probably has something to do with wording.

But this did have terms, sort of. It said that Christy would pay back the 1100$, starting with a 100$ payment on March 1st which Christy says she, of course, didn't do. It did neglect to say when other payments would be made - monthly, semi-annually, yearly? Who knows?

I guess if Christy hadn't dumped P after she got her dream car, he would not have been here suing.

[Bazinga]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Christy signed a promissory note 2 weeks after the purchase, which JM voids and I didn't quite understand why.

I do not agree with the reasoning but I will try to explain it.  For there to be an agreement both sides need to give something up - the quid pro quo.  Plaintiff gave up money to pay for the car but the defendant, in Judge Milan's opinion, only signed the promissory note in order to appease the plaintiff that she was not just into him for money.  I think the time gap with the intervening reason of the plaintiff's discomfort with the situation motivating the preparation and signing of the note is what decided it for JM.  The promissory note was not being signed to memorialize their agreement but to pacify the plaintiff.  The defendant was not giving up anything.  So at the time of the initial transaction, it was the plaintiff buying the car for the defendant as a gift with the note thrown out as evidence.  A stretch to me.  JM has often used as evidence that it was a loan, the defendants' later promise, usually in texts, to pay, that the defendants claim was just to appease the plaintiffs who were "harassing" them.  More likely it is what DOCTORK wrote.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Bazinga

[VartanFan]

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 1-Plaintiff says husband called defendant/dog owner names after defendant's dog attacked plaintiff's beagle/schnauzer. 

She absolutely is all the names the husband called her. And then some. What a vile, entitled woman. Also, I think you might have given her more credit than she deserved, because I believe she only paid an initial $400-something and magically didn’t trust the defendant once the next bill was $1000+!  

[AZChristian]

Thanks to all who summarized the case here.  We saw the early part of it, but then had a weather-related report that kept us from seeing the rest of the show.

[AngelaHunter]

13 hours ago, Bazinga said:

JM has often used as evidence that it was a loan, the defendants' later promise, usually in texts, to pay, that the defendants claim was just to appease the plaintiffs who were "harassing" them.  More likely it is what DOCTORK wrote.

It seems that way. JM acted as though this case was unique, but many times we've seen defs forced to pay after they admitted they only signed a promissory note, or sent texts or emails after the fact, vowing to pay "just to get him/her off my back". That has never worked to forgive the debt before.

I have no idea what JM saw in that big ol' mealy-mouthed, family-lovin' ingrate that was so sympathetic. I wonder who buys her cigarettes now?

[CrazyInAlabama]

They had the rerun this morning Doggie Disaster  Where the Rottie owner couldn't be proved to be the owner of the attacking dog.     

Then, the one where the people were renting a place at a barn, and after landlord found out about his criminal history, they were told to leave.  Background criminal checks should be run by every landlord, and in this case she never would have let them move in, or board a horse at her barn.   

Other posters said he's a registered sex offender, so I would have called whoever handles that in their city or county, and then done the eviction notice at the same time.    I'm hoping that the 30 day notice wouldn't apply with the criminal history of the plaintiff.   The plaintiff man stomping out when he loses the case is the only funny part of the case.   

[CrazyInAlabama]

Not Mending Fences-Case 1, plaintiff accuses neighbor of not fixing fence to plaintiff's satisfaction.   Tree on defendant's land has branches hanging over fence onto plaintiff's property, so defendant was going to have tree man trim the tree on plaintiff's property.  Plaintiff claims defendant said tree trimmer was insured.  Then, three fence panels of plaintiff's fence were damaged, and it was days later when plaintiff talked to anybody about the fence.  Judge Marilyn is ticked when plaintiff says she couldn't talk to workers because they didn't speak English.    Days later plaintiff still didn't talke to defendant about the fence damage.   The two women dislike each other, so defendant didn't know about the fence costs until the law suit papers showed up in the mail.   Plaintiff gets $150 to fix her three panels of corrugated metal fence.    (Defendant said she didn't want to pay for the fence, because "it's used for a roof in third world countries".)    I predict that this feud will never end. 

Case 2-Plaintiff sent money to defendant via Pay Pal, and then the $496 was taken out of plaintiff's account by Pay Pal, because said Pay Pal said it was a fraudulent transfer. So, plaintiff gave money to someone who couldn't pay her back, and got ripped off for double because of the Pay Pal issue..    Defendant has a lot of reasons he can't pay anyone.   He did pay plaintiff $50.     After a bunch of garbage, $380 and interest for two months, to plaintiff, and defendant is still a scammer. 

Case 3-Plaintiff sold puppy to defendants, and contract requires neutering to get the AKC papers.     Plaintiffs refuse to send AKC papers until defendants neuter dog, because if plaintiffs sent it, then defendants could breed and sell the offspring as AKC registered.   Defendants say they don't intend to neuter or breed dog (the only reason you need AKC papers is to breed I'm guessing in the defendant's mind), but don't want to neuter him, because it will change his behavior.     

Plaintiffs are suing for $3,000, or return of puppy (French Bulldog puppies).   Defendants bought Oscar for $3,000, and contract requires neutering by seven months of age.    I can't say I like defendant Mrs. super heavy makeup or her fried hair.   Wife bought the dog for husband, and only wife signed contract.     Defendant husband says he didn't know about the neutering contract, but defendant husband was at the puppy pickup from plaintiffs, and was told about the neutering contract.       Why would anyone want AKC papers and registration when you claim you're not going to breed the dog?    

Judge Marilyn doesn't think a French Bulldog can be bred without papers and make a bunch of money, I've seen Frenchies going for up to $5,000 without papers.     Plaintiffs want $1,000 more to get full papers on dog to defendants, so defendants could breed the dog.    No AKC papers to defendant. 

Judge Marilyn won't give money to plaintiffs, or take the dog back, but no AKC papers to defendants.    (I bet that Oscar has sired a bunch of puppies).

[rcc]

In the puppy case at first the plaintiffs didn't want dog bred. Then oh well give us another $1,000 then you can. Greedy much! Then the paypal scammer. People will do anything to get over on someone!

[AngelaHunter]

28 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Not Mending Fences

I've known people like the Def. They cannot listen to anyone, but just hover, waiting until the speaker pauses to draw a breath and start yammering. P is the opposite. No, she never mentioned to anyone that the D's workers "busted" her fence when they cut the tree, although I understand that trying to have anything resembling a reasonable conversation with the loud, mouthy, hostile D would be an exercise in futility. No, they never got along and JM wants to know why.

P says, "She call me out my name." I'm sure I've heard this particular expression before on this show, but what does it mean? JM seemed to know but I don't understand.

All this ranting and animosity over 150$ aluminum slats.

28 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff sent money to defendant via Pay Pal

Was P, Ms. Amanda, drunk, drugged, or just half-asleep? She never wonders why her neighbour would ask her if he could send her money by PayPal so she could send it back to him. Of course she doesn't know. She just did it, as we all would if our neighbour hooked us into some financial dealings. There are other ways of receiving money that don't involve PayPal or WU, but I guess those means are not an option for most of our litigants.

Def had his iPad and account hacked, he went to the hospital and whatever other excuses he had for never paying the P money that was taken from her account to this very day. I just bet dopey P will do it again for her "friend" who scammed her. Ours is not to reason why...

 

Edited October 6, 2021 by AngelaHunter

[CrazyInAlabama]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

"She call me out my name."

Means to insult someone.    Doesn't make sense to me, but not much about that case did make sense. 

[AZChristian]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

She call me out my name

According to the urban dictionary:

Call out of name

To insult; using an insult in place of one's name.
Usually referring to the term bitch.

Insult: "What you want, bitch?"
Response: "Don't you be callin' me out my name!"

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Means to insult someone.

 

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

To insult; using an insult in place of one's name.
Usually referring to the term bitch.

Ah, thank you! People don't usually call me "bitch" instead of my name (not within my hearing, anyway 😄 )so perhaps that is why this is unfamiliar to me. The phrasing still makes little sense to me, but I do enjoy learning new things.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Insult: "What you want, bitch?"
Response: "Don't you be callin' me out my name!"

Now this is what I call sophisticated.

Why these lines weren’t in Breakfast at Tiffany’s is beyond me.  

Edited October 7, 2021 by PsychoKlown

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Now this is what I call sophisticated.

Why these lines weren’t in Breakfast at Tiffany’s is beyond me.  

It seems Paramount is fighting to do a remake (!) so perhaps that may be included then.

Too late for Audrey.

"Miss? Pardon me but I believe you may have called me out my name."

 

 

 

[Carolina Girl]

Whenever I hear that "call me out of my name" expression, I think of those IRS scammers that tell you that a "lawsuit is out in your name at the 'Courthouse'." (Not knowing, of course, that a "lawsuit" is a civil proceeding and not criminal; hence, no one would be coming to arrest you."

I always love to ask them "WHICH Courthouse?"  But my personal favorite was the time I told them "I always knew you'd catch up to me one day......you can go ahead and send the police - I won't put up any resistance."

[CrazyInAlabama]

In today's show, I missed almost all of the first case of a woman rapper who agreed to pay the plaintiff/promoter $150 to perform at his show.   She performed, and didn't pay, and she loses the case, so has to pay $150.   (If rapper defendant performed on the TV show, I missed it, and I'm glad I didn't have to sit through another bad performance. 

Case 2-Two people lived together off and on for 25 years, plaintiff paid defendant/ex-boyfriend $5,000 for two lakeside lots, and she's suing because she claims the county judge wouldn't build a road to the lots.   However, defendant/land seller says there are two existing roads to the properties, and the former judge only agreed to have the roads graded.    All of the land deals happened twelve years ago.    Plaintiff has a terrible case of mush mouth.   Defendant says it was road graded, but not a new road put in, and that was the previous judge not the current one.   What did plaintiff do to her hair?   Top is gray, middle of hair is reddish, and the bottom is gray.  I guess I missed another hair fashion trend.  Defendant says plaintiff lived on the land for years in a tent.   (My guess is it was a county commissioner involved, not a judge). 

 Plaintiff loses her ridiculous case, especially since the land buy was 12 years ago.  

(In the Doug hall-terview, plaintiff is shocked she lost, and claims that there are no roads to the property). 

 

Edited October 7, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

In today's show, I missed almost all of the first case of a woman rapper who agreed to pay the plaintiff/promoter $150 to perform at his show.   

I too came to TPC party late and kept hearing about her $150 performance and going to his place.

I honest to Pete thought she was some sort of dancer and made house calls.  It wasn’t until I put my listening ears on that I got the gist of the case.

And the whole look was a bit distracting.  At one point it looked like they were using a doorbell camera.

And my honest opinion about case 2 is that it’s good they are no longer a couple.  It appears they do not mix anymore.

[AngelaHunter]

30 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

Whenever I hear that "call me out of my name" expression, I think of those IRS scammers that tell you that a "lawsuit is out in your name at the 'Courthouse'.

Oh, I love those calls! Yes, I found out not only is my government going to have me ("your name") arrested at "your address" neither of which they seem to know, but that I can pay taxes owed with Google Play cards. Imagine that. Best part is that I was informed that I "can't hide." 👀

22 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

In today's show, I missed almost all of the first case of a woman rapper who agreed to pay the plaintiff/promoter $150 to perform at his show. 

I missed everything after we started hearing about the sexual stuff ("Lick lick"). It seems we have so many hypersexual litigants and any and all dealings they have with any member of the opposite sex always devolves into trash from "indoendoes" to booty calls.  I hit the FF button. Oh, those eyelashes!

25 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

-Two people lived together off and on for 25 years

I liked this much better, just for the idiocy of it all. Playing house for 25 years, even with "intermissions" doesn't entitle one to file a lawsuit for a transaction that happened 13 years ago.

JM was especially interested in the Arkansas county judge who, in a *wink wink* deal with def agreed to have this road paved at the taxpayers' expense. That was P's story. Def says that judge, who is the D's buddy, merely agreed to grade the road and this was done. P says the road is just rocks. Not sure how ordering road paving or even grading is in a county judge's jurisdiction, but maybe it is in Arkansas? I don't know but JM, who was a county judge didn't seem to think it is.

I was just wishing that JM would have told P - who lived in a tent on this property after her boyfriend D sold his house and gave her the heave-ho - would stop with the fish mouth. Omg! Open/close open/close non-stop. I don't know if she had any upper teeth but had to FF to the hallterview where she continued to do that while talking to Doug. I assume she got nothing. The End.

[Guest]

“You won the case.  I hope you get your house cleaned”.   

Has there ever been a more amazing statement on TPC?  

Poor Doug was skeeved.

[AZChristian]

15 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

“You won the case.  I hope you get your house cleaned”.   

Has there ever been a more amazing statement on TPC?  

Poor Doug was skeeved.

Was this the one from several days ago, where the plaintiff was taking her sweet time to pack up boxes?

If it's a new one, I can't wait to see it.  I love how Doug gets away with telling people the truth (e.g., "Well, you're a loser").

Edited October 8, 2021 by AZChristian

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Was this the one from several days ago, where the plaintiff was taking her sweet time to pack up boxes?

If it's a new one, I can't wait to see it.  I love how Doug gets away with telling people the truth (e.g., "Well, you're a loser").

Good news AZChristian I am referring to today’s case. 

A word of advice…don’t eat your lunch while watching.  The words beyond gross don’t begin to describe the situation 

Can’t wait for the comments. 
 

[DoctorK]

12 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

The words beyond gross don’t begin to describe the situation 

Today’s first case plaintiff really needs some help. First of all, get someone to teach her how to put on eye makeup. Secondly, learn how to SHUT YOUR MOUTH! I don’t mean to stop talking, I was grossed out by the way whenever she wasn’t talking she just sat there with her big slack jawed mouth hanging open. As the case developed, it turns out that she is a complete slob living in a pig sty so maybe this is considered normal to her. The defendant’s mistake was that she didn’t just walk away from the job immediately and refund any money she had received. JM indicated that she thinks the painter’s work should include cleaning the walls (especially in a kitchen) as part of prep work (and I agree) but the absolute mess with greasy walls, huge numbers of roaches and roach eggs is beyond any normal prep. The defendant was no prize either, she didn’t understand that she needed to return the down payment when she justifiably (I think) decided to not do the job. She also could use some good advice about how to dress to appear professional in a (sort of) court case, and how to shut up when the judge is talking.

Harvey's after the case statement seemed to completely contradict what I saw happen, but this is noting new for me. There is something wrong with one of us, but I would be afraid to ask for vote on which one.

Edited October 8, 2021 by DoctorK

[rcc]

The first case today makes me realize that some people have no shame! Then she proudly brags to Doug that she has a cleaning company come to her house once a month now.

[CrazyInAlabama]

19 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Harvey's after the case statement seemed to completely contradict what I saw happen, but this is noting new for me. There is something wrong with one of us, but I would be afraid to ask for vote on which one.

I'm voting Harvey is the wrong one.    Harvey's comments often contradict what happened in court, or are flat out wrong.   He also answers according to the laws in a certain state, not the way the law may vary.   An example is fence law, where Harvey claims fences have to be joint, and both owners have to split the cost, not in my state.  

"Crummy Carpentry", case 1-Wow!  That house is disgusting.   I bet you couldn't find a floor in that house without a shovel, and a crew from 1-800-Got Junk with several trucks.     Plaintiff's house is disgusting. That's not paneling in the picture either, it's bead board look alike.      I wouldn't require anyone to clean that hideous wall either, unless it's a biohazard company in full gear.   

 What is on the plaintiff's face?  And what is up with her voice?    She's slurring her words.   How does plaintiff not know that there's wall paper on the walls that needs to be removed?     $200 back to plaintiff for the small part of unfinished work.    

Why didn't defendant just return the deposit, and run away from that dump?    I love Doug in the hall, and his honest comments.    Plaintiff claims she has a twice a month cleaning company, I doubt that.  Even the crew from Hoarders would run away from that dump.    

The judges discussion is about how many times Judge Marilyn fell in court, and the answer is twice.       Only one fall was shown on air, and I was appalled at the lack of response from anyone in the courtroom. I guess the fall was so sudden, that on lookers were stunned for a few seconds, including bailiff Douglas.   However, when Judge Marilyn came back to the bench, Douglas made sure she didn't fall again.     

Judge John never fell in court, but his assistant, the lovely Carmen did a terrible face plant once, and Judge John says every man in the courtroom rushed to help her up.

Edited October 9, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

 The words beyond gross don’t begin to describe the situation 

Yeah, so I was eating dinner. This did not enhance my enjoyment of it.

I try to not judge a book by its cover, but in this case, both covers matched their contents.

I really don't know where to start, but first of all, I thought it was just the usual contractor crook case. And then - holy shit - when I saw this filthy, disgusting lair of the P's with a cockroach infestation so bad that the WALLS were covered in roach poop I couldn't believe anyone on the planet would set foot in that hazardous, vile nest no matter how desperate for money. Who the hell would think about painting, new floors, and beadboard when every surface was covered in dead roaches and roach shit? Oh, yes - someone who has lost all the natural revulsion we have for disgusting conditions. Shades of "Hoarders", who fixate on some  dust-covered needlepoint their mom made while their floors are knee-deep in debris, roaches and rotten food. P is just like this, mentioning that maybe the baseboards were a little greasy!!??

If the P, who is unable or unwilling to clean her own filth (and who is this "we" she spoke of? Her and her roach army?) thinks any housekeeper would work there she's nuts, or just oblivious to her foul conditions. Roaches sneak into your pockets or equipment and entering that place would surely guarantee that anyone would take some home with them. This happened to me once in the changing room of a clothing store. Luckily I was looking in the mirror and saw the roach run up and duck into the pocket of  the garment I was trying on.

The rough-looking def, with her multitude of exposed tats, her inability to STFU, and her refusal to comprehend that a deposit IS refundable if SHE breached the contract, was equally repugnant in her own way. Her litany of excuses for not finishing the job were kind of admirable: It was raining, she had a car accident, she dropped her phone in a bucket of paint, she had no babysitter, and another one I forget now. Nowhere in her texts does she say, "I cannot work in your pigsty. Here's your deposit back."

After that debacle it was refreshing to get the case of Mr. Stibes/Stiles whatever, with his blindingly white enhanced smile, suing his deadbeat grifting friend for money he loaned him and never got back.

Def. was some kind of lying sociopath who could not be shamed in spite of JM's best efforts. He says in the hall, after Doug kind of ripped him a new one, about his friend who was the only person who would help him - he's probably scammed everyone he knows -  "It is what it is. Good riddance." Doug did not try to hide his contempt.

I just know he's one of those leeches who thinks, "Hey, he just got an inheritance. He doesn't need the money so I should get some of it!"

[rcc]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I'm voting Harvey is the wrong one.    Harvey's comments often contradict what happened in court, or are flat out wrong. 

"Crummy Carpentry", case 1-Wow!  That house is disgusting.   I bet you couldn't find a floor in that house without a shovel, and a crew from 1-800-Got Junk with several trucks.     Plaintiff's house is disgusting. That's not paneling in the picture either, it's bead board look alike.      I wouldn't require anyone to clean that hideous wall either, unless it's a biohazard company in full gear.     What is on the plaintiff's face?  And what is up with her voice?    She's slurring her words.   How does plaintiff not know that there's wall paper on the walls that needs to be removed?     $200 back to plaintiff for the small part of unfinished work.    

Why didn't defendant just return the deposit, and run away from that dump?    I love Doug in the hall, and his honest comments.    Plaintiff claims she has a twice a month cleaning company, I doubt that. 

The judges discussion is about how many times Judge Marilyn fell in court, and the answer is twice.       Only one fall was shown on air, and I was appalled at the lack of response from anyone in the courtroom. I guess the fall was so sudden, that on lookers were stunned for a few seconds, including bailiff Douglas.    

Judge John never fell in court, but his assistant, the lovely Carmen did a terrible face plant once, and Judge John says every man in the courtroom rushed to help her up.

Was it twice a month for cleaning? I thought I heard once a month. Of course I could hardly look at her, as disgusted as I was. 

[AngelaHunter]

33 minutes ago, rcc said:

Was it twice a month for cleaning? I thought I heard once a month. Of course I could hardly look at her, as disgusted as I was. 

I couldn't watch the hallterview, so queasy was I by then, but I can't help thinking about what condition a person's body must be in when they see nothing unusual or shocking about living in filth.

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Harvey's after the case statement seemed to completely contradict what I saw happen, but this is noting new for me.

I'm sure you're right. I wouldn't take note of any babble that comes from that schlock master/gossip monger who hasn't even practiced law in a quarter of a century.

[rcc]

36 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I couldn't watch the hallterview, so queasy was I by then, but I can't help thinking about what condition a person's body must be in when they see nothing unusual or shocking about living in filth.

I'm sure you're right. I wouldn't take note of any babble that comes from that schlock master/gossip monger who hasn't even practiced law in a quarter of a century.

The hallterview (love that new word) was good. Doug was disgusted too.

[Guest]

The plaintiff in the messy kitchen case resembled Mason Reese.

 

 

 

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

The plaintiff in the messy kitchen case resembled Mason Reese.

Yeh, but at least Mason Reese (whoever the hell he is) knows how to close his mouth.

[AngelaHunter]

12 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Yeh, but at least Mason Reese (whoever the hell he is) knows how to close his mouth.

It was a bad week for those of us who have a problem with slackjaws. First the tent-dwelling, cast-off g/f literally fish-mouthing for the entire case in a way I have never seen, and the Queen of the Roaches who was merely gaping, her breathing possibly impaired both by her weight and by inhaling a ton of dust from roach feces. I can imagine what Kim Woodburn would find with her test kit. Both were extremely icky in different ways.

I wish JM would do what JJ has done more than once, and that is to bark, "Close your mouth!"

[CrazyInAlabama]

How strange, the rerun episode they ran in the morning the other day was "Doggie Disaster", and now they're showing it again this afternoon.  I just looked at Titan TV, and all five afternoon episodes are already reruns this week.      Sadly, this is the attack of a big dog, on little Mocha, and poor Mocha almost died, and the vet bills were over $4,000.  However, there is no proof that the defendant's dog is the black dog that almost killed poor Mocha.    

[AngelaHunter]

I automatically skip any dog cases, but I see the 2nd case was a rerun already and from less than a month ago.

Remember in olden times we'd get new shows of all sorts all winter and reruns in summer only? Now it seems it's one month of new and 11 months of reruns we saw weeks or a few months ago.

[AngelaHunter]

On 10/11/2021 at 4:10 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

How strange, the rerun episode they ran in the morning the other day was "Doggie Disaster", and now they're showing it again this afternoon.

I didn't see that or the case that preceeded it, in which P is suing def. for punching her in the face, the cost of restraining order and then D's g/f who is really big wanted to fight P later - all this over a parking spot. She got arrested for child endangerment, punching the g/f and resisting arrest because she couldn't get in the police car due to her claustrophobia. This condition and her lupus don't stop her from driving, doing laundry, fighting, or getting in her own car. It was the handcuffs that made her unable to get in the police car. She did nothing wrong although her behavior made her lose custody of her daughter - she acts like that's no big deal - while she was in the slammer for 2 months. She only went to jail because she had a "bad lawyer".

Def is a teacher who is countersuing for the same amount - 4,999.99$ because HIS arrest made him get kicked out of his job for a period of time. He's a teacher(!) who is violent, has no self-control, has to take an anger management course, and says things like, "I ain't denied it." Interesting to see the reason why we have so many illiterate students.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I didn't see that or the case that preceeded it, in which P is suing def. for punching her in the face, the cost of restraining order and then D's g/f who is really big wanted to fight P later - all this over a parking spot. She got arrested for child endangerment, punching the g/f and resisting arrest because she couldn't get in the police car due to her claustrophobia. This condition and her lupus don't stop her from driving, doing laundry, fighting, or getting in her own car. It was the handcuffs that made her unable to get in the police car. She did nothing wrong although her behavior made her lose custody of her daughter - she acts like that's no big deal - while she was in the slammer for 2 months. She only went to jail because she had a "bad lawyer".

Def is a teacher who is countersuing for the same amount - 4,999.99$ because HIS arrest made him get kicked out of his job for a period of time. He's a teacher(!) who is violent, has no self-control, has to take an anger management course, and says things like, "I ain't denied it." Interesting to see the reason why we have so many illiterate students.

Clarification:  As the Plaintiff in first case stated so eloquently “I have claustrophobic.”

Then, as if that statement wasn’t enough to satisfy any court watchers wish she continued with the jaw dropping sentence “I asked the police for a ambalance.”

And since I do look at backgrounds of the litigants…Mr. Defendant sure had a host of pill bottles proudly displayed on his dining room hutch.   Wonder if any of them help to calm the guy down?

Sometimes I think that JM really does deserve the big paycheck.  

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Clarification:  As the Plaintiff in first case stated so eloquently “I have claustrophobic."

I didn't  catch that. Claustrophobic what? 😄

3 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

“I asked the police for a ambalance.”

I did catch that.

As utterly annoying as P was (and I have no doubt she was screeching like a banshee at D with her fists balled up) I have concerns that someone like D, who punched her over parking, has a hair-trigger temper, an inability to control it, and a propensity for violence is teaching.

 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I didn't  catch that. Claustrophobic what? 😄

Claustrophobic angora?  That’s my guess 

[AngelaHunter]

13 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

…Mr. Defendant sure had a host of pill bottles proudly displayed on his dining room hutch.   Wonder if any of them help to calm the guy down?

Depending on what they are, they may make him more rageful.

 

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

Claustrophobic angora?

That sounds exotic.

"I just got this rare Claustrophobic Angora. Careful! He nips when excited."

[Carolina Girl]

How about that idiot dog owner whose dog attacked a little dog in a dog park and then tried to double talk his way out of responsibility after giving the plaintiff his number and walking with her to the entrance. 

"All of us were saying her dog didn't belong there" - except my money says this lying dick didn't even NOTICE her dog until his dog bit the little guy.  Oh, and apparently he is able to telepathically know what the dog is thinking and is an expert at dog behaviors.  Deduced, of course, after the fact, as he made up a story about what happened prior to the bite.  

[rcc]

Today's first two litigants with the junk car case need to visit a barber. Lol

[rcc]

Judge John had a funny story about the New England accent. JM said nothing but did laugh a lot.

[AngelaHunter]

44 minutes ago, rcc said:

Today's first two litigants with the junk car case need to visit a barber. Lol

Grizzly Adams, the Senior Years,  in his cluttered lair was too much. He buys a completely trashed, 20 year old Pontiac that he claims has only half an engine and tows it home. He takes it to a mechanic who says it's not worth fixing, so P just leaves it there in the parking lot for a week. For some weird reason he cannot understand, the owner of the parking lot has the 'hunk of junk' eyesore towed away. "It's public parking!" he claims. JM informs him it is not.

But that's okay. He - this person who can't afford to pay 600$ for the worthless shitbox - has his lawyer on that case. JM sneers at that. Def is a smarmy creep and his stringy, long, badly-dyed hair was bugging me. He never registered this so-called car and the owner had a stroke and blah blah. He has no paperwork of the sale to P and couldn't have any since he's not the registered owner but wants the 400$ he says P owes him, plus another 100$ for his labour. Neither of them get anything.

P has a Hungarian saying he wanted to pass on: "First you lie, then you steal, and then you kill." I'm assuming he's predicting that the D is going to murder someone, due to his penchant for peddling useless junkers to some idiot who should have more sense?

In the hall, P informs Doug that everything D said is "Bovine scatology".

Then we had Mr. Molo or Rolo (I forget) who bought a used Ikea dresser on FB for 135$ plus 62$ to movers to get it. JM informs him he could have bought it brand new at Ikea for what he paid for item and movers. Oh, but this rare particle board item was unavailable at the time. He couldn't go to see it in person with the movers that day because his Mommy had knee surgery and he couldn't leave her side for an hour or two.

Anyway, he had told the Def not to disassemble it since that would weaken the integrity of this item, but D takes it apart anyway since he said he couldn't get it out of his place intact.

These "movers" throw the cardboard boxes with all the pieces in them into the back of their van. It has scratches on it, so P wants his money back. D shows the pic he posted of it on FB shortly before selling it, and there are no scratches anywhere that can be seen. JM even comes down from the bench to look closely at D's pics.

P is not done and displays to JM some plastic dowel with a bent screw. JM concludes that could have been damaged in the van and that could also be how pieces were scratched up. He gets nothing.

In the hall, P informs Doug he's taking this to another court. Doug tells him he's had his shot here and he's a loser. So in all, with the purchase price, the movers, and his filing fee this junky dresser cost him 12$ more than it would have to buy it new.

Finally we had some little weirdo who drives with no registration because he wanted to take his girlfriend for a lovely day at the beach. The cops nabbed him while he was in the car, and ordered it towed. He had 773$ worth of tools - almost the exact amount of the 800$ tow yard fee -  and stuff in it and is accusing the tow company of stealing his possessions, even though D says she had no keys for the car.

"What do you do for a living?" JM asks when trying to find out what these tools were.

"I was moving and collecting," says P, whatever that means which turns out to be he's not working. He had a BB gun in the car which he needs when he goes hiking, even though he looks as though he has not seen the sun or fresh air in years, if ever. JM asks if maybe it was some kind of automatic weapon? "A rifle", P concedes.

I am always amazed at people who think nothing of breaking the law in a foreign country. I'm too scared to do that in my own country and would never drive without license, registration and proof of insurance and for sure would not be carrying weapons around.

Three plaintiffs who all got zippo.

A question for JM and JJ, asking if the bad grammar of litigants bothers them? I could almost hear JM thinking, "Don't get me started!"

JJ says, "It don't bother me." 😄

It seems we're getting a few new episodes mixed in with the repeats of a few weeks ago?

[DoctorK]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

He had a BB gun in the car which he needs when he goes hiking, even though he looks as though he has not seen the sun or fresh air in years,

I am familiar with the company he said made his BB gun. They make replicas with the correct dimensions, and use CO2 cartirdges to operate the action to simulate actual firing for training. I have one of their products which is a good simulation of my cold weather carry gun which I can safely practicely with in my garage. The only reason this pencil necked geek would have this simulated firearm is to intimidate people or pull off armed robberies and then plead that he wasn't using a real gun. He was a real complete piece of crap.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I love that the man who got the car impounded finally had to admit it was because of the F-stop, which is getting stopped and driving without a license, or registration, so it's an automatic impound.    And the towing was done by Philadelphia Parking Authority, of Parking Wars fame.    (See watching every episode of Parking Wars, most more than once, pays off for TPC viewing too).   

Edited October 20, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

He was a real complete piece of crap

The tow lady looked as though she were thinking through all this nonsense, "I can't believe I have to sit here and defend myself against  the "bovine scatology" spewing out of this little complete piece of crap."

He was such a liar too, about everything but especially saying the cops wanted his car keys and that's how D got them to steal his priceless junk.

[Guest]

Nothing is personal.  Nothing is sacred anymore.

Just waiting for the question:

Hey Judges, have either or both of you ever contacted a STD?  If so, how and any advice to those who can’t tolerate penicillin?  Asking for a friend.  By the way, your daughters are amazing!!

It’s coming to an episode soon.  I can almost guarantee it.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

I hate today's new case "Ham Radio Horror" about a man buying an antenna device, and then wanting his money back.   I guess another defendant who can't figure out "As Is".   But plaintiff/seller says the controller (that was new) was connected wrong, and burned out.    I hate both of these litigants, because they think trying to confuse the Judge will will the case.