The People's Court - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

8 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

I did like how JM was quizzing him on his great standing in the SF jazz community.  Poor Jude couldn’t come up with a coherent answer…just take his word for it…he’s big.  Really big.

He must be a philanthropist  who just wants to teach the world to sing for free, since it seems he never gets paid anything in spite of his stellar standing in the music world. I think the last time Jude was coherent may have been at the turn of the century, if then.

 

10 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

He probably doesn’t have a closet in his basement dwelling so the headboard not only holds up the mattress - it also holds up his clothes from the floor.

You expect closets in a SRO crib?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, AngelaHunter said:

You expect closets in a SRO crib?

I admit it.
I’m a hopeless dreamer.  

[AngelaHunter]

2 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

I admit it.
I’m a hopeless dreamer.  

Who said, "If you're going to dream you may as well dream in colour"?

I hope Jude can take his sad song and make it better.

[rcc]

9 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Who said, "If you're going to dream you may as well dream in colour"?

I hope Jude can take his sad song and make it better.

Lol Good one!

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I hope Jude can take his sad song and make it better.

No joke every time I wrote poor Jude I was actually thinking hey Jude.

I am also amazed with the amount of people who actively pursue a thorny relationship with their neighbors.  Are their lives so empty that this somehow gives them a jolt?  

I wouldn’t think about agitating my neighbors purely because I don’t want to feel uncomfortable whenever we run into each other.  

Unless it was a monumental issue, I’d let it go.  Seems I’m alone on that idea.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Yes, the infamous SRO, aka flop house.      

The curtain lady, I'm guessing her relatives and everyone else agreed with her about the yellow hue of the curtain linings, just to shut her up.

There was nothing wrong with the curtain lining, and Judge Marilyn, and the defendant are right, the shade the curtains are depends on the light behind them.   I think a white lining would look strange.  

Edited October 29, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

33 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Unless it was a monumental issue, I’d let it go.  Seems I’m alone on that idea.

Nope. I like living in peace, quiet, and harmony. The only less-than-postive interaction I had with neighbours was politely asking the woman next door to remove the ton of construction boards, doors, etc,  she had leaning on my fence, (and I hated asking) and that was only because I was worried that with snow and ice piling up, it could break. She did it. End of discussion. I never threw mud on her car,  said words out my mouth, hurled rocks at her door, called her out her name, or invited her to fight me.

Some people, like my former SIL, do seem to thrive on chaos and enjoy being constantly at war with neighbours.

[Carolina Girl]

Philip was right about one thing.  Milian’s eyes were deceiving her.  That black car in no way was impeding or blocking the silver car. I’ve pulled out of my own driveway with less clearance from the street parking.

The only way Jude is a big part of the Bay Area music scene is if he’s the barback at Yosh’s.  

[AngelaHunter]

12 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

Philip was right about one thing.  Milian’s eyes were deceiving her.  That black car in no way was impeding or blocking the silver car.

I agree. I thought at the time that maybe MY eyes were deceiving me, because I couldn't figure how one car was blocking the  other. There was enough room for a truck to get out.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today's new episode (and the start of ratings sweeps month) is underwhelming, "You Destroyed Our Friendship".    So, the plaintiff loaned money to her gambler friend, he didn't pay it back, and I don't care.    

Case 2-Couple were under contract to buy a multifamily unit from defendant, who kept changing her mind on the price, only had a short time to do inspections.   Then the couple/plaintiffs find out the building next door and park area next door is going to be a five story apartment, plus a parking garage.    So, plaintiffs want defendant to pay them for inspections they did, and punitive damages when they backed out of the deal. 

Plaintiffs claim defendant had to know about the huge complex going in next door, and of course, defendant denies knowing about the building.   The current building next door is a school admin building /community center, plus a privately owned skate park, and the new build is for teacher housing.    The only interesting part is defendant is a traveling performer, an acrobat.     The project people were still looking for funding, the project had been talked about for 14 years before the sale, and nothing had been done (apparently it's a high cost area, and the teacher's housing is to attract teachers to that area, in return for cheap rent).

Defendant sold the place for $80k more to the next buyer.   Plaintiffs lose. 

Case 3-Plaintiff suing for $146,81 from defendant /landlady, after plaintiff serviced the tenant's air conditioning unit for defendant's tenants.   The only interesting part is defendant's relative scooting around the background, but we can see them.  

Plaintiff repair man loses.   He was hired by the tenant, not the landlady

So much for sweeps rating month (where every show on every channel viewers are collected, which effects advertising rates, and shows the age groups that watch a show) being interesting cases. 

[AngelaHunter]

8 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiffs claim defendant had to know about the huge complex going in next door, and of course, defendant denies knowing about the building. 

Yes, and she had about 800 boarding passes, which gave JM anxiety, to prove she is a traveling acrobat and had no idea of the complex going up next door.  Plaintiffs are millennial-type entitled whiners who feel someone else should pay (punitive damages, really??) any time something doesn't work out for them. They just KNOW def. knew all about this complex and hid it from them through pure evilness.  Go whine to someone who cares. Motor-mouthed wife was beyond annoying with her non-stop blabbering about schools and having two kids and how wonderful and blah blah blah.

OH, and the only interesting part of the big-time deadbeat gambling def who has no regular job, but does...something, for which he is paid a "little bit of money" sucks up to JM with , "How are you, 'Jueza' Milian?" to which she replies, stone-faced, "Fine."

12 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 3-Plaintiff suing for $146,81 from defendant /landlady, after plaintiff serviced the tenant's air conditioning unit for defendant's tenants.

What a dimwit P is.  Three years ago his ex-employee told him that the tenant who hired him to fix the a/c told HIM (employee) that landlady would pay the 146$. Double hearsay is the total of his evidence. Pretty boring except for JM interrupting the questioning of P to tell D to ask "whatever is crawling around on the floor" to stop. Looked like some man-child, old enough to have coaxed up some facial hair but crawling around like a toddler and even when caught, scrurries away in a crouch instead of walking off like a normal person.

 

[Bazinga]

8 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Couple were under contract to buy a multifamily unit from defendant, who kept changing her mind on the price, only had a short time to do inspections.   Then the couple/plaintiffs find out the building next door and park area next door is going to be a five story apartment, plus a parking garage.    So, plaintiffs want defendant to pay them for inspections they did, and punitive damages when they backed out of the deal. 

Plaintiffs claim defendant had to know about the huge complex going in next door, and of course, defendant denies knowing about the building.   The current building next door is a school admin building /community center, plus a privately owned skate park, and the new build is for teacher housing.    The only interesting part is defendant is a traveling performer, an acrobat.     The project people were still looking for funding, the project had been talked about for 14 years before the sale, and nothing had been done (apparently it's a high cost area, and the teacher's housing is to attract teachers to that area, in return for cheap rent).

Defendant sold the place for $80k more to the next buyer.   Plaintiffs lose. 

Why wasn't the fact that even after the plaintiffs found out about the new construction, they wanted to go ahead with the deal but made a lower offer that was denied, the key point in this case?  Even after they found out the big disclosure issue, they still were willing to proceed, so it was not really an issue that prevented the deal from going forward.  They thought the new construction somehow merited a price reduction while other buyers, even knowing about the construction, were willing to pay even more than they were and the seller went with the highest offer.  The new construction disclosure was a non-issue being used as an excuse to get unrelated expenses back from the defendant.  They could no longer afford the property due to an ongoing bidding war that they lost.  If their lower counter offer had been successful, would the defendant still have been responsible for the inspection?  No.  The judge should have made that the issue for her decision, not that they could not prove notice, because now the plaintiffs, especially the wife, think they lost because she was not able to get the buildings department to provide proof of the notices that were sent to the defendant due to Covid (again, someone else's fault).  The wife thinks, if only she could have got that proof, they were right and would have prevailed.  But, even if she could prove what was sent, cannot prove the defendant read any of it.  Defendant responded correctly on the disclosure form by saying, "not that I know of."  Plaintiffs would have to prove she actually knew not that she should have known, which is totally different.   Ridiculous people who have to find someone else to blame for not getting what they want.  I did not care for them or their claim (with punitive damages to boot; where were the mental anguish, stress, denial of future income claims?)         

Edited November 2, 2021 by Bazinga

[NYGirl]

Not sure if San Francisco has the same procedure but in New York you don't have to fill out the Disclosure leading to a $500 credit to the buyer.  Saves a lot of he said/she said.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Yes, and she had about 800 boarding passes, which gave JM anxiety, to prove she is a traveling acrobat…

As opposed to a stay at home acrobat.

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

What a dimwit P is.  Three years ago his ex-employee told him that the tenant who hired him to fix the a/c told HIM (employee) that landlady would pay the 146$. Double hearsay is the total of his evidence. Pretty boring except for JM interrupting the questioning of P to tell D to ask "whatever is crawling around on the floor" to stop. Looked like some man-child, old enough to have coaxed up some facial hair but crawling around like a toddler and even when caught, scrurries away in a crouch instead of walking off like a normal person.

 

Here’s my question.  Was there any explanation for why this moron was scooting across the floor like a dog’s behind?  

I was watching this in the emergency room.  I was preparing lunch and the knife slipped and did a number on my finger.  I thought I was okay until I got lightheaded and the bleeding wouldn’t stop.  My husband insisted emergency room treatment and while I was waiting for the doc I put the tv on.  Saw the creature scoot but could not make heads or tails out of it because doc came in and started the operation.  Or stitches, if you prefer.  I couldn’t figure out what JM said so I am assuming she didn’t find it amusing.  

Did Edith Bunker say why guy was crouching on the floor?  There has to be a reason.  Then again, maybe not.

THat’s all I got.  That, and be careful around knives.  Knives can do mean things to fingers.

 

 

 

 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

 My husband insisted emergency room treatment and while I was waiting for the doc I put the tv on.

Nice to see you have your priorities straight. So how many stitches did you get? Is there anyone you can sue over this incident? It can't be your fault. Maybe the manufacturer of the knife who made it too sharp and didn't engrave warnings on it?

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

Here’s my question.  Was there any explanation for why this moron was scooting across the floor like a dog’s behind?  

No explanation was offered so we'll have to make something up. Maybe the little lad (who seemed to be a big grownup boy) urgently needed to go peepee? He didn't want to be on the show so scooted around on the floor until spotted by JM, whereupon he jumped up and scampered off, bent nearly double as he may have thought that would render him invisible. A normal person would have just walked across the room or delayed whatever he needed to do for 10 minutes but I guess it was a dire emergency.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Nice to see you have your priorities straight. So how many stitches did you get?

The emergency center is divided into two sections - traumatic and then not-so-traumatic.  I was in the not-so-traumatic so the individual rooms have a bed, nightstand and a high-def tv high atop the wall.   They must’ve thought I was a VIP because my room had a hair washing sink.  I couldn’t figure out why a hair washing sink would be there and the nurse assistant told me that it was to clean head wounds.  Yikes.  She jokingly asked me if I wanted to stick my finger under the faucet and would I be able to perform daily tasks if they put a cast on my arm.  She was a real panic.  

I got three stitches…no cast…no cause for litigation…and some super-duper extra strength Tylenol.  

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

No explanation was offered so we'll have to make something up. 

Maybe the dope was preparing lunch and instead of behaving like a normal individual and just slap the chicken salad on a couple pieces of bread, decided to “carve” a tomato to hold the chicken salad.  And while carving this slippery tomato had his finger right beside the blade thus ensuring that an operation (or stitches if you prefer) that afternoon would be a given.

That’s my guess.  

[AngelaHunter]

48 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

 I was in the not-so-traumatic so the individual rooms have a bed, nightstand and a high-def tv high atop the wall.

You got a room with a TV for a cut on your finger? That's some upscale ER. I was in the hospital last Dec for day surgery. Got there at 7 and didn't get sprung til 9 that night. No room, just a stall, and for sure no TV. It is what it is!

 

51 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Maybe the dope was preparing lunch and instead of behaving like a normal individual and just slap the chicken salad on a couple pieces of bread, decided to “carve” a tomato to hold the chicken salad.  And while carving this slippery tomato had his finger right beside the blade thus ensuring that an operation (or stitches if you prefer) that afternoon would be a given.

You're projecting and giving him too much credit. I doubt he'd know how to butter a slice of bread. Maybe it was the first time in a week he was out of the basement where he plays video games non-stop, needed more snacks (the kind that come in bags and not some fancy retro concoction) and was trying to emulate one of his stealthy Ninja avatars by sneaking up on Grandma.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today's show "You Sold Me a Sick Horse"   Case 1-Plaintiff buys horse off of internet ad, and owner calls the farrier first, and vet second.    The horse starts limping, and laying down, but this was after new owner starts feeding horse to gain wait, so they could have caused founder, or colic from the sudden change in quality of feed.   Vet said horse has Cushings (need daily medication for about $80 a month, for life)

Defendant buys from the kill pen, and resells, but apparently doesn't have much in the way of vet care either.    Vet said horse had Cushings, some foot abcesses, and plaintiff wants her money back, plus vet bills.    Horse was also claimed to be eight, and is apparently over 20 years old, but no proof.  The receipt from vet for services saying 22 years old, and recommends euthanasia.  This was in Texas, but that's an "as is" on sales.    Plaintiff loses, and she's ticked.    

Case 2-Plaintiff and boyfriend suing former landlord after they were evicted.  She's suing for $10,100.    Landlady says plaintiff and her kids, (plaintiff had two 2 1/2 year twins, and another toddler), and the boyfriend were a big PITA, with constant noise complaints from other tenants.  Plaintiff claims that her texts from landlady about her noisy toddlers were condescending, and that kids have the right to be kids (My view, the noise complaints were justified).    Plaintiff claims that the eviction came after she complained to the housing authorities about lead paint on the wall.   Plaintiff claims she wants her $2990 back twice (two security deposits), and attorneys fees, and $3,000 in emotional distress (from downstairs neighbor's son banging on her floor complaining about the kids' noise).   There was a settlement in landlord / tenant court, which said each side has to pay their own attorney fees.   

Plaintiff is objecting to the eviction notice, including the facts that the ex-boyfriend was charged with pistol whipping a person, child endangerment (no it wasn't the plaintiff, or her kids).   Boyfriend also broke the front door too.   Boyfriend ripped the lock side trim, and door supports, and I think with labor it will cost at least $1,000 to get that replaced.   Damages included repainting the living room walls, the living room closet, molding of front door, destroyed bedroom, and another room window blinds.   

Plaintiff gets $1393 back from security deposit.    Plaintiff is another professional tenant, including knowing everything in tenant/housing court.    I hope plaintiff's current landlord had a better contract with her, and photos before she moved in.   Defendant/landlady should have had better receipts.   WHy do I guess that boyfriend wasn't supposed to be living there either?  And you know he was. 

Case 3-Custom t-shirts ordered for plaintiff's daughter's first birthday, because t-shirts weren't what she wanted.    T-shirts were delivered on time, as usual, plaintiff wants a full refund.     Judge Marilyn makes a good point, there were over 100 guests, and the kid won't even remember any of it.   The t-shirts were supposed to be personalized saying "grandma" "mommy" etc of the birthday girl with a photo of the baby.    The order of shirts totalled 90 at the end, and they all showed up on time.   Two days before the party the shirts weren't all finished, so the shirts were finished the day of the party, but not all shirts had the entire words on the shirt, some with titles.   Some shirts were after the party started.   Shirts cost $953, and defendant offered a $200 refund. 

Plaintiff gets $715.  (That party was stupid.   The kid won't remember, it's just a chance for Mommy to try to out do everyone else). 

Edited November 3, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[rcc]

I hate cases like the second one today. Destroyed apt. Kids screaming. Tenants from hell. But she is offended, emotional distress. No concern for damaging defendent's property. JM should not have given her a damn dime!

[Pepper the Cat]

That second Plantiff was a piece of work. “ my kids have the right to be kids”. How much you wanna bet that those kids were stomping up and down the halls, jumping off of furniture and screaming.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I'm watching the morning rerun of the "Not mending fences" show.   Case 1 about the fence is too stupid to watch again. 

The PayPal scam case was equally stupid.

Case 3-the French Bulldog puppy sale to defendants where the contract said the defendants had to neuter the dog or they won't get the AKC papers.   

Defendants have another male bulldog, and now the French Bulldog, and this is where Judge Marilyn goofs big time.   Judge M. says you can't breed and sell unregistered French Bulldogs for $3,000 and up, and she's wrong.  I've seen Frenchy puppies for sale for up to $5,000 without registration papers.   Defendant man is another person who thinks neutering a dog 'changes their personality', and I bet both dogs are studded out regularly.    

Today's new, boring show "Shipping Situation", plaintiff sent a pedestal sink, and a sink bowl, to separate buyers.   Defendant has the shipping company, and only insured for the standard $100 each (defendant's standard shipping insurance).   Both items showed up broken beyond repair.    But, plaintiff didn't pay for extra insurance either.    Then Judge Marilyn goes berserk on defendant/packing company owner for not putting "Fragile" stickers on the package.   Fedex refused to pay anything, and the other company paid $100.   

Because plaintiff's son didn't buy extra insurance, so plaintiff gets $435, for the packing fee, and $200 for the minimum value.  Defendant says all of the materials items were packed in, and if it's true, then they were well packed. 

Case 2-Plaintiff hired defendants to fix ceiling in her house, and wants her money back, and lost tenant rent, and says job was slow and bad.   Defendants are old friends on plaintiff, of course there was no written contract.   Defendant was supposed to scape popcorn ceiling, and fix ceiling after, and it took over 30 days to complete.     Ceiling, drywall work is hideous, and plaintiff will have to get someone to do the job over.   $760 to plaintiff.

Edited November 3, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Today's new, boring show "Shipping Situation", plaintiff sent a pedestal sink, and a sink bowl, to separate buyers.

Plaintiff insisted on calling what Def did "gross negligence" (which he repeats to Hall-Doug, even after JM explained this was not the case.) Shipping guy couldn't be bothered  slapping a "Fragile" sticker on the second package because what's the use? He says the sticker just encourages the shippers to treat the item like a football. I kind of agree as it seems they do that at my post office, but Def should have put it anyway to lessen his own liability. The real negligence was by P's 28-year-old boy because no one held his hand and told him to get insurance for 32$ on such expensive and fragile items but of course it's not the fault of wide-eyed "I didn't know... I assumed" boy. Daddy would never blame him. He's just a lad!

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff hired defendants to fix ceiling in her house, and wants her money back, and lost tenant rent, and says job was slow and bad.

It was kind of interesting seeing the sort of stupidity on the parts of all parties who would be expected to have more sense at their ages. Def is or was a welder who did a few little DIY projects in his own home, so P thinks it's a good idea to pay him 2100$, (Def says 700) according to her, to remove popcorn ceilings and do drywall which, IMO, is really kind of an art and not a job for rank amateurs.

He messes it all up and his wife explains it's not his fault - of course not- since the room was too small and crowded, the job was awkward and her husband is too fat (he's a 'big guy') to fit in and do it right. They had to move stuff and D wife shoved a dresser around with a TV on it and of course the TV fell and broke. Three or four days of work turns into 35 days and the drywall job is a mess but it's not Def's fault he says. No one bothers with receipts. When JM asks defs for same, wife shrugs and says, "Oh, we didn't keep those!" P  says D used the money to buy stuff for himself, like some kind of bubblegum and overalls, etc.

Def wife says she returned 500$ and bought P a new TV after P kept bitching about it. Big "swearing fight" ensues and the job needs to be redone. P also has to pay for the person living in that room to bunk elsewhere during this whole debacle. "The cheap comes out expensive" is usually correct. Friendship is kaput.

From all this we learn that nothing we do is our fault. Someone else is always responsible.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today's strange cases, "Never Loan Your Sister Money".   Case 1-Sister keeps loaning other sister money, more than sister asks for, and defendant claims sister gifted the money, and didn't need it back.   The only interesting part is the total is $701, instead of an even number. 

Sister /plaintiff worked for the IRS, and defendant claims plaintiff used illegal access to see if she actually received a refund.   Defendant claims the IRS took her refund, but in her sworn statement plaintiff admits she looked to see when defendant received a refund, and how much (totally illegal).  $701 to plaintiff. (I'm hoping someone from the IRS saw this episode, about plaintiff snooping in official files).

Case 2-Plaintiff single mother of 6 kids under the age of 12, suing a car seller for selling her a car for $4800 with a bad transmission.   As always, defendant says 'as is', who knows what plaintiff did to the minivan after she drove car away when she took possession.   Plaintiff test drove the car, but of course, no mechanic exam on the car.   Car was advertised on FB Marketplace, it's a 2010 Saturn Outlook. 

I had to laugh when the defendant said of course the transmission shop said she needed a new transmission or rebuild, because whatever shop you go to recommends a lot of repair $$$.    He also said if you go to a tire shop with a flat tire, they'll push four new tires on you. Plaintiff claims defendant told her he would buy a new transmission for her, no he didn't. 

Decision for the defendant, 'as is' wins again. 

Case 3-Plaintiff stored her boat at defendant's house, someone stole the boat, and plaintiff wants defendant for the price of the boat.   Plaintiff calls the boat storage a loan of the boat, and claims defendant is responsible.    Defendant swears he's seen the boat sitting in plaintiff's yard since 2013.  Why should the defendant store the boat indoors, when plaintiff never did?    Boat cost $740 in 2014 or 2015 (so how could defendant see the boat since 2013 on her property?).   Plaintiff pays $370. 

[AngelaHunter]

18 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 The only interesting part is the total is $701, instead of an even number. 

I found interesting that P refused to take payments in whatever increments - 25$ or so - and wanted it all back at once or nothing. That's just stupid. If Def had 701$ to pay I doubt she would have been trying to hit up her own kid and her grammy, both of whom refused her. Def was rocking an incredible attitude for a scrounger. D says P got fired from her IRS job? Maybe after it was discovered she was snooping into sister's tax refund? I think P said she "left" her job but who gives up a government job?

20 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff single mother of 6 kids under the age of 12

Yeah, well, to be fair only 5 of the under-12 crowd are the issue of the SSMO5. The other one is a dumpee from a son or daughter seemingly following in the anti-birth control tradition. We hear nothing about baby daddies. P had truly the worst, most janky, rachet wig I've ever seen. It was so stringy and dirty-looking it distracted me.

Big difference in this as-is old car sale: P says she is knowledgeable about cars, uncle has a garage and all that. Still, as she test drove the car and found fault with it which she mentioned to Def, she has it checked by a mechanic (not her uncle?) after she pays for it, as usual. Def offered to let her go get her uncle to check it out before purchase, but she couldn't wait to buy it since she feared someone in the lineup of other eager purchasers might get it first. And then couldn't wait to start harassing D - and I believe he got vulgar and threatening texts - for him to either buy her a brand new tranny at nearly the same price as the car or give her money back.

He was willing to help her until the venom started spewing. He had no trouble with the car. Something conked out on it after he sold it. This happens with 11-year-old veehickles. P is another one trying to invoke the famous Lemon Law on an old beater. How dare he sell a less-than-perfect car to a single mother who seems to have squirted out a kid every other year? That was her choice and hardly a choice for which special consideration need be given.

34 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 3-Plaintiff stored her boat at defendant's house, someone stole the boat, and plaintiff wants defendant for the price of the boat.

I nearly turned this off when P reached into the distant, hazy past and started on her tale of the traditions of her fishing family from the 50s or 60s but luckily JM moved her on from that. At first I thought this was some kind of cabin cruiser but turns out it's a110lb rowboat that had been sitting on her property for years, unused, when some neighbour guy, Fred Driller, is walking by, sees it and offers to let her keep it on his property which on the water and she could come use it whenever she wanted. She says he told her he'd keep it in his garage.

It sits at Fred's for over 2 years and P still doesn't feel the need to use it. Since she never used it when it was on her property I can't see her ever getting it on the water in her lifetime. Anyway, Driller just leaves it his dock unsecured. Someone thought it was worth stealing so the thing gets swiped and old lady wants the retail value of the boat when it was new.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today's show, "Mangling a Motorcycle"   Case 1-Plaintiff parked his motorcycle in the parking lot several business's lease, and the Jeep owner who parks next to him, moved his Jeep, creamed the motorcycle with a big box truck.    Defendant claims motorcycle was parked in a truck spot (no signs about what is supposed to park there).    Jose, the defendant is a total jerk.   $1313 to plaintiff.   Defendant whines about losing.  

Case 2-PLaintiff hired defendant to do work around the yard, and wants his $750 he had to pay another landscaper to finish the job.    Defendant claims plaintiff paid him, tipped the workers, and three months later wants his money back.    Plaintiff says defendant took down the chain link fence he was supposed to take down, but defendant and his workers dumped the fence across the street, right next to a no dumping sign.   Defendant charged for dump fees for a tree, ivy, etc. but claims he only dumped a few parts of the chain link fence.   The fence dumping pictures are recent, and plaintiff just took them for court.   Judge Marilyn tells plaintiff to call the city, tell them who dumped the fence parts, and show the court case where defendant admits he dumped the material there illegally.  Defendant claims he'll pick up the illegally dumped fence, but I don't believe he will.

Plaintiff gets $250 back, and defendant will pick up the chain link fence.  Plaintiff would have received more, but the contract wasn't specific enough. 

Case 3-Plaintiff car owner is suing defendant for not honoring the warranty on five cars that plaintiff was taking to defendant's shop.    Defendant says plaintiff hasn't taken his car to defendant's repair shop for over three years, and claims plaintiff doesn't pay his car bills.   PLaintiff claims all five cars have lifetime warranties on work that defendant did on his five cars over the years (car alarms, window tint, car radios).   Defendant says the warranties are on installation, not the device.    Defendant wins. 

 

 

[AngelaHunter]

Is this supposed to be Sweeps? It is not living up to our expectations. Maybe we can start a class-action suit?

For the 36-year old bike that is deeply loved by P, who proposed to his wife on it, or with it? I forget, but yeah, Def was a total smirking slimeball who decided the repairs to the ancient bike should only be 600$, a figure he seemingly pulled out of his ass. He knew damned well he crashed the bike with his truck and just drove off, not knowing there was a video of him doing so. We get the usual "The judge didn't let me talk" in the hall, but what is there to talk about? He got caught smashing the bike and has to pay for it. Simple.

Then we had a kind of prissy Mr. Peepers suing dumb, lazy Palooka for not getting all the ivy off his property, not grinding a stump, for saying he would put a cement pad for a shed - which he realized he didn't know how to do and never did, and for throwing a length of old chainlink fence across the street from P, where there is a sign saying there's a 1000$ fine for dumping junk. No WAY is he going back to pick up the fence, even though he reluctantly says he will after prodding by JM. JM is right saying that stump grinding is a different thing than cutting trees. It does require specialized equipiment and costs extra.

"The louse"? Levin, stop with that or at least try and use some other archaic synonyms, like

"cad, cootie, knave, rat, scoundrel" just to mix things up a bit, you cootie.

I was so bored I didn't bother with the 3rd case.

[Guest]

Excellent recap CrazyInAlabama and AngelaHunter.  I wish the cases were as interesting as your interpretations of the cases.

Agreed that the defendant in the motorcycle case was a real jerk.  I’m not a fan of public videos everywhere but when they’re needed - they’re hard to refute.

Nothing special about the other two cases but I found one oddity (I can hear AngelaHunter now….ONE ODDITY?  PsychoKlown, you’re slipping!!) the defendant in case 2 was poised in front of an odd painting.  It wasn’t ugly, cheap, obscene or inappropriate - it was just odd.

It was a framed canvas of magnolias.  Magnolias!  Then again, he might have borrowed a space to be videoed for the People’s Court but it still seemed odd to me.  Like the former footballer Rosey Grier working on needlepoint projects and other crafts…more incongruent than odd.

Here’s a real kick in the head…what if the magnolia painting had Rosie Grier’s signature in the corner?

Mind. Blown.

Edited November 5, 2021 by PsychoKlown

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

I’m not a fan of public videos everywhere but when they’re needed - they’re hard to refute.

. . . the defendant in case 2 was poised in front of an odd painting.  It wasn’t ugly, cheap, obscene or inappropriate - it was just odd.

It was a framed canvas of magnolias.  Magnolias!

Regarding the video cameras everywhere - I love them.  We watch "See No Evil" on one of the cable channels, and it's a joy to see so many crimes being solved now because stupid criminals run into Walmart before or after their crimes.  Now the cops can get good picture of how the perps look and what kind of cars they drive.

I noticed that magnolia picture, too.  It took me back scores of years ago when we were first married, and you could get three rooms of furniture for $799.  A picture for the wall and a couple of throw pillows were part of the deal.  

What I thought was interesting was the black wall phone with a dial behind the plaintiff in that case.  Do dial phones still work???  Or was that part of plaintiff's  parents' "three rooms of furniture for $799" deal?

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

the defendant in case 2 was poised in front of an odd painting.  It wasn’t ugly, cheap, obscene or inappropriate - it was just odd.

I actually noticed it too. It looked like some generic art print one would buy at Walmart, chosen because the colours match the sofa. Or maybe it's a priceless original in an extra-cheap frame. Who knows? I also noticed a very cute little dog being lifted away from the screen, so I concluded that the lazy slob was either living with his girlfriend/wife who probably thinks he's a catch, or he lives in a room in someone else's house.  I see Def's taste in art running to "Naked chick with big fake boobs on a Harley".

ETA: I just skimmed the 3rd case of the ridiculous claim for 5K for paint job and an audio system, both of which were done 10 years ago. Did you SEE the size of the sippy cup? A gallon capacity at least. Hey, Levin? His sippy cup is way bigger than your sippy cup. I bet that ruffled your little cootie feathers. Yeah, I know cooties don't have feathers, but oh, well.

Edited November 6, 2021 by AngelaHunter

[Deskisamess]

On 10/25/2021 at 6:15 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Adult raccoons are formidable. I make sure not to go on my back property after dark. The babies the minister was holding were very young so probably not a threat but I still wouldn't hold them - or any wild animal with claws and sharp teeth -  up to my face. It's just common sense, something lacking in so many litigants.

Google "Melissa Loomis" to see why you don't take on a raccoon. She tried to protect her dog, and ended up loosing an arm.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today's boring entry "Sinking a Friendship"  Case 1-plaintiff was going on an Alaska cruise with defendant in Sept 2020, didn't happen.   There's still a Barcelona cruise with the two women pending.   Then the Alaska cruise turned into a Carnival cruise to Sydney, but defendant claims she didn't go, but the cruise happened.   It took Judge Marilyn and her trusty little computer about 20 seconds to find out Sydney didn't happen either.   

I can only imagine the two women sharing a cabin on a cruise after this, it wouldn't be good.   Plaintiff claims she fronted the money, but defendant admits she did get a refund for the Alaska/Sydney cruises, and defendant claims the Barcelona trip will use the money.    Defendant really ticks Judge Marilyn off.  Defendant received a full refund, and still has the money.   

Plaintiff has 24 hours to give the court proof of any money paid to defendant, and everything will be paidback to plaintiff, and defendant gets no money, and gets reamed out by the Judge.   The two women will never cruise together again, for obvious reasons.  

Case 2-Plaintiff was buying a cottage, but it was a spruced up mobile home, and bank wouldn't finance it.   Defendant claims what he was selling was obvious, and he's not repaying the $1,200 plaintiff spent for inspections.  The biggest issue for plaintiff was the supports under the trailer weren't up to specs, and plaintiff claims the trailer was held up by car jacks. 

 Defendant says home is half mobile home, and half slab construction.    Buyer's contract says inspections are paid by the plaintiff.   Defendant gave the deposit, $4,000 back to plaintiff, but not the money plaintiff spent for inspectors.    

I agree foundation looks pretty bad, and it doesn't look like a slab, but a crawl space, but that's not defendant's fault.   Plaintiff claims because the cottage is a mobile home, that you can drive it.  Plaintiff offered to still buy the cottage for $20k off, but defendant would only go down $10k on price, so no deal.  (Thanks to Angela Hunter for catching that, I totally missed it) I think the foundation/supports issue could have been fixed for less than the $20k that plaintiff wanted off. 

Defendant wins.  What a ridiculous case. 

Case 3-Plaintiff hired roofer to redo the garage roof, and defendant says he did a great job on the roof, and it's not the roof leaking, just the windows.   Defendant didn't do the membrane, so the copper edges leaked, and it was corrected by the second roofer, but the $2500 is for damages to the drywall from the leak. 

$3000, to plaintiff, $500 for the work, and $2500 for drywall and painting. 

Are these cases the best the researchers could find?  

Edited November 9, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

13 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant wins.  What a ridiculous case. 

For sure. Plaintiff says the place looked not at all the way it was described, even though he went and saw the property and thought it was fine.  It was held up with car jacks and he couldn't get a loan for a semi-mobile home, but that doesn't stop him. He still wants it! Only the fact that def agreed to drop the price by only 10K and not 20K  made the greedy P change his mind about buying the home. Def immediately refunded the deposit and the contract clearly states that the buyer is responsible for the cost of the inspection. What part of that did the cement-headed, semi-toothless P not understand?

 

17 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff hired roofer to redo the garage roof,

Only part of interest was D admitting he quoted the whole job, and when he decided part of it didn't need doing did not subtract the amount from the bill. I don't know why P didn't mention that at the time.

20 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Are these cases the best the researchers could find?  

Seems that way.

[DoctorK]

Today's second case about a serpentine belt replacement was interesting. Up to the end it looked like the plaintiff was failing (among other things, his statement that upper and lower radiator hoses had to be disconnected to replace the belt was ridiculously wrong, I have changed serpentine belts numerous times on various cars I have owned). His other piece of evidence was that after the change it was a MOPAR belt which means it had to be the factory original since only Chrysler can get a MOPAR belt, which JM noted was incorrect since MOPAR belts are readily available at Auto Zone, which the plaintiff did not seem to believe. Then the defendant shot himself in the foot by showing a faked receipt stating that they put on a Gates belt, completely undermining his credibility. Without the faked receipt, the defendant would have won. I am glad this turned out as it did, I distrusted the plaintiff because of his erroneous assertions, but he was nevertheless correct in his conclusion.

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Dog Disaster".  Case 1 Man walking his service dog, but momentarily took leash off of his dog,   Defendant's two off leash Pit bulls attacked plaintiff's dog, defendant did nothing to help, and plaintiff hit the Pits to get them off of his dog.      Defendant claimed to pay the vet bill, but never did, but his mother co-defendant paid the plaintiff $200.  Defendant's dogs are Blue Nosed Pit, crossed with Siberian Husky. Plaintiff's dog is a Pit Bull/German Shepherd cross.  Defendant woman says her dog previously was attacked by a woman, but defendant claims her dogs are harmless.    Vet bills were about $1,000, defendant paid $200, and plaintiff wanted $10,000. 

There is no proof of what dog attacked what dog, what dog was on leash.   Case dismissed.  

Case 2-Plaintiff claims defendant was supposed to change the serpentine of the plaintiff's car, but other shop said belt wasn't changed.    Plaintiff claims you have to remove the water hose, to put on a new belt, but that's not right.   However, plaintiff paid them, then came home, called the mechanic shop, and threatened a lawsuit.    Judge Marilyn gives the plaintiff his $172 back.   I think that was the wrong decision. 

Case 3- Bizarre case of plaintiff claims defendant neighbor disconnected his air conditioning unit, put defendant's a/c unit on the slab, and left his in the dirt.  Defendant claims plaintiff's outside a/c unit was in the wrong place, and she just relocated plaintiff's unit.  Plaintiff's tenant called and told him what happened, and took pictures.   However, plaintiff's a/c guy told him what happened, but there is nothing in writing.    The estimate for everything including duct work replacement is $10,000, but this was an old unit, and no proof that plaintiff's a/c was broken. I don't know why the unit was moved, but it's a condo, so they have all kinds of joint property.    Defendant claims they did disconnect , and reconnect the a/c for plaintiff's place, but the reconnect was days later. 

Defendant wins.   

Three ridiculous cases. 

[AZChristian]

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Today's second case about a serpentine belt replacement was interesting. Up to the end it looked like the plaintiff was failing (among other things, his statement that upper and lower radiator hoses had to be disconnected to replace the belt was ridiculously wrong, I have changed serpentine belts numerous times on various cars I have owned). His other piece of evidence was that after the change it was a MOPAR belt which means it had to be the factory original since only Chrysler can get a MOPAR belt, which JM noted was incorrect since MOPAR belts are readily available at Auto Zone, which the plaintiff did not seem to believe. Then the defendant shot himself in the foot by showing a faked receipt stating that they put on a Gates belt, completely undermining his credibility. Without the faked receipt, the defendant would have won. I am glad this turned out as it did, I distrusted the plaintiff because of his erroneous assertions, but he was nevertheless correct in his conclusion.

The plaintiff's actual receipt from the day the work was done showed a Gates belt, so it appears the defendant faked HIS receipt to make it say it was a Mopar belt.  The Mopar "receipt" would match the picture of what the plaintiff presented; there was a Mopar belt in the picture.  The original belt was a Mopar.  But the second mechanic said that the belt on there had not been changed out; it was a factory-installed Mopar. 

JM even said that somewhere on the receipt the defendant showed, it indicated that the receipt from the defendant saying "Mopar" had just been printed off the day of the trial (so it wasn't the original receipt).  The defendant screwed up by putting "Gates" on the original receipt when he hadn't changed out the Mopar belt for a Gates belt.

I think it was the right verdict.  I am incredibly thankful for a mechanic that I can trust!

Edited November 9, 2021 by AZChristian

[rcc]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

"Dog Disaster".  Case 1 Man walking his service dog, but momentarily took leash off of his dog,   Defendant's two off leash Pit bulls attacked plaintiff's dog, defendant did nothing to help, and plaintiff hit the Pits to get them off of his dog.      Defendant claimed to pay the vet bill, but never did, but his mother co-defendant paid the plaintiff $200.  Defendant's dogs are Blue Nosed Pit, crossed with Siberian Husky. Plaintiff's dog is a Pit Bull/German Shepherd cross.  Defendant woman says her dog previously was attacked by a woman, but defendant claims her dogs are harmless.    Vet bills were about $1,000, defendant paid $200, and plaintiff wanted $10,000. 

There is no proof of what dog attacked what dog, what dog was on leash.   Case dismissed.  

Case 2-Plaintiff claims defendant was supposed to change the serpentine of the plaintiff's car, but other shop said belt wasn't changed.    Plaintiff claims you have to remove the water hose, to put on a new belt, but that's not right.   However, plaintiff paid them, then came home, called the mechanic shop, and threatened a lawsuit.    Judge Marilyn gives the plaintiff his $172 back.   I think that was the wrong decision. 

Case 3- Bizarre case of plaintiff claims defendant neighbor disconnected his air conditioning unit, put defendant's a/c unit on the slab, and left his in the dirt.  Defendant claims plaintiff's outside a/c unit was in the wrong place, and she just relocated plaintiff's unit.  Plaintiff's tenant called and told him what happened, and took pictures.   However, plaintiff's a/c guy told him what happened, but there is nothing in writing.    The estimate for everything including duct work replacement is $10,000, but this was an old unit, and no proof that plaintiff's a/c was broken. I don't know why the unit was moved, but it's a condo, so they have all kinds of joint property.    Defendant claims they did disconnect , and reconnect the a/c for plaintiff's place, but the reconnect was days later. 

Defendant wins.   

Three ridiculous cases. 

Yes ridiculous and JM obviously doesn't like greedy litigants. So they get nothing.

[AngelaHunter]

"My old, tiny a/c unit was moved so I want 10K to buy a brand-new, state-of-the-art unit to compensate me for my tenant having no a/c for a day."

Get outta here with that, you fool. 😄

I don't know anything about the car belts, but those two were rocking some accents.

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Bickering Over a Bathroom"  Case 1-woman gets a shower panel installed (like a shower door, but only with the fixed part, not the door), and it starts leaking.    The shower panel needs caulking, but defendant/installer had major foot surgery/reconstruction, and is still in a boot a year later, and Judge Marilyn doesn't believe he can't do the work.     However, wasn't Judge Marilyn the one that had major bunion surgery, and wore a boot for a really long time?    Plaintiff doesn't want her $900 back, but $2355 back.    This recaulking would take an hour, a tube or two of caulk, and that's it.   Plaintiff never got it fixed, and no warranty on the panel.  The original installation was almost two years ago. 

Defendant wins, after having Judge Marilyn treat him like a liar, and a malingerer.   Plaintiff is a horrible person. 

Case 2-Plaintiff bought a preprogrammed fire stick from defendant, claims it was junk, and wants $106 back.  Defendant blames the plaintiff's lack of tech savvy for the issue.    Plaintiff is either a airplane captain, or head of a fleet of kiddy boat rides, with his 4 stripe epaulets.  No, you need a subscription cost as far as I can tell.   Judge Marilyn says defendant is a bootlegger, but he just put the link to everything on the firestick, and then the person needs to get a subscription, or free trial for the ones they want to use.   I suspect the firestick had a free trial with the HBO. 

The funny thing in Captain Plaintiff says the HBO didn't work, but he didn't want HBO anyway.

Plaintiff gets his $106 back. 

Case 3-Plaintiff rented 3 bedroom house to defendant and wife, they trashed the place, and above the security deposit they owe him over $2300+k.    Defendant owes nothing because of Covid, and wants $5,000 in his counter claim.   ANother landlord who felt sorry for a defendant and only received $890 of the $1,000 security, and August 2020 partner moved out, and defendant stopped paying, until he left in December 2020.   Property manager filed for eviction in November 2020.    Defendant claims he paid half in cash in September, no receipt.   

Defendant says when the locks were changed, police in Arkansas told him to break in.  Defendant claims he applied for Covid relief.   

$500 of security is non-refundable, it's in the lease.  Ex-wife or whatever claims defendant paid the full security deposit, instead of $890.   

Why do landlords come on this show?   Photos of door and window damage from a big dog are bad, the door damage from a fist, so security is gone.   But judge wants to impose an illegal lockout penalty, so $2460 to plaintiff.  The lockout penalty was $250 credit to the defendant.      (I'm suspecting that when the moratorium ends, and courts catch up, there will be a lot of landlords selling former rental properties.)  (Some states do nothing about squatters. Not just non-paying tenant squatters, but squatters who were never tenants, and just broke into a house).   

Judges' question is if a couple who separated 27 years ago, and the husband buys a house, is it marital property, the answer is Yes.    Judge Marilyn says her grandmother was separated from her second husband for almost 30 years, without divorcing. 

 

Edited November 11, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

18 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 3-Plaintiff rented 3 bedroom house to defendant and wife, they trashed the place, and above the security deposit they owe him over $2300+k.

The law is the law, but it seems highly unfair that a landlord can't lock out a destructive squatter, but squatters are allowed to essentially rob landlords by not paying rent. Squatter doesn't think he needs to pay because of the "monotoranium or whatever" on rent. As the  landlord said in the hall, he still has a mortgage and bills to pay and can't afford to be a charity for squatters. "He never gave me receipts!"  I guess he was too shy to ask for any. Ex-wife concurs that they deal only in cash, no receipts. Brilliant.

Words of wisdom in the hall from the squatter: "Like everything in this country, it always goes for the other way." I have no idea what that means but it must be pretty deep. Deep, man!

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Words of wisdom in the hall from the squatter: "Like everything in this country, it always goes for the other way." I have no idea what that means but it must be pretty deep. Deep, man!

I think I found the perfect quote for my holiday cards.  

I will be sure to place these deep words smack center of the card so that AngelaHunter and a bevy of others may have the card professionally framed. 
 

Thanks to TPC (and its squatting litigant) it truly will be The Most Wonderful Time of the Year!
 

 

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

I will be sure to place these deep words smack center of the card

I'm sure the recipients will nod sagely as they rub their chins while pondering the true meaning of those pithy Words of Wisdom. Or maybe they'll just think you were blotto when you wrote it.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I'm sure the recipients will nod sagely as they rub their chins while pondering the true meaning of those pithy Words of Wisdom. Or maybe they'll just think you were blotto when you wrote it.

You’ve got that right.

I can hear my sister now…”how many sidecars do you think Angie had before signing off on this incomprehensible crap posing as a Christmas card?”

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Your Kid is out of Control"

Case 1-Plaintiff says neighborhood kid damaged her car. Plaintiff says she's had issues with neighbor's kids a lot.     Kid's grandmother lies for him, and thinks he's innocent.   Plaintiff says she saw the younger defendant grandson playing with rocks, then she looked at her car, and there's a fist sized rock with a big dent on her car, other kids accused Jamari the older grandson of defendant grandmother.    Plaintiff lied about having a video of the incident, and kid confessed.    Grandmother/defendant says her grandsons are innocent, and no video mean no proof.  Jamari says they were throwing rocks, and they looked at plaintiff's car and didn't see any dents.  

Now, grandma admits her grandson did the denting of the car, but then says that she didn't get the estimate from plaintiff until six months ago, and thinks it's too high anyway.  One estimate for $650 is from a chop shop.   Yes, during Covid, legit body shops were closed, but a chop shop was open, and giving estimates.   Grandma's daughter, Jamari's mother claims she didn't get a response from plaintiff. 

Plaintiff gets $650, but it's against Jamari.  So, Jamari will have a judgment against him, and plaintiff will have to sue to get the money someday.  However, Judge Marilyn says mother and grandmother don't have to supervise the grandkids every minute.   My guess is the kids run wild, and always have.    

Judges discuss strange case about a gunshot, and an aircraft crash. 

Case 2-Plaintiff suing her cousin for an unpaid loan.   $839 is in question. Defendant claims the $750 was a gift when she went to college.   Defendant's name is Serinity, not Serenity.  So not only are the litigants bad spellers, but they also don't have the faintest idea of proper English, or grammer.  

Then plaintiff saw that not only did cousin not repay her, but defendant was buying expensive tattoos, pay for a drug test, and other extras.  Defendant's right arm seems to have the first phase of a big sleeve tattoo (the outline, ready to be filled in), so I'm believing plaintiff, not defendant.   Defendant claims plaintiff is a liar, that money was a gift, and that mean plaintiff was harassing her on social media for payment for the last three years.    

Plaintiff gets her $839.    

 

Edited November 11, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[rcc]

Terrible defendants today. First case lying grandma and second case an ungrateful brat.

[AngelaHunter]

8 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

-Plaintiff says neighborhood kid damaged her car.

Both of them were so long-winded in attempts to prove how honest and upstanding they are, except P is a liar who vehemently denied getting an estimate for 650$ until forced to do so then it was, oh, yes I did but it was a disreputable "chop  shop" Hmm. I was surprised that someone so beyond reproach would deal with criminals. Maybe she meant "alley mechanic" and got mixed up?

And Grandma ( just going by this show it seems all single mothers just casually get knocked up,  squirt their kids out, dump them on Granny and walk away. I guess it's "a thing".) is so determined to make JM understand how honest, how responsible, and respectable she and her brood are spends much time explaining to JM how the boy didn't do anything, (even though he admitted damaging the "vehicle" and related how he and his friends spend their days throwing rocks), and the price of the repair was too high, and she was in the hospital, and P never contacted her, even though her "residence is next to my residence", and on and on. Boring, and all for nothing. The kid is never going to pay.

17 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff suing her cousin for an unpaid loan.

Marginally better, if only for the utter entitled trashiness of that girl and her ridiculous name, "Serinity". So perfect.

17 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

So not only are the litigants bad spellers, but they also don't have the faintest idea of proper English, or grammer. 

The language was indeed murdered by these two. JM asked Serinity, "Are you in a dorm?" Once upon a time I would have thought, "Are you kidding? You think a college student speaks like an illiterate"? I now know better. Serinity can't pay the money back. She needed a tat, and a bad dye job and whatever that crap was hanging all over her walls. But she has excuses: "Grandma purchased me a tattoo." Glad Granny has her priorities straight and recognizes the needs of her granddaughter.

Referring to her cousin who gave her money when no one else, not even her  parents would, the lovely Serinity says, "She's a very known liar." Why would someone take money from a very known liar? The lying didn't seem to bother her when she took the money.

Pay the money you dumb, superficial, millennial, Instagram idiot. Get some English lessons instead of tats.

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant claims plaintiff is a liar, that money was a gift, and that mean plaintiff was harassing her on social media for payment for the last three years.   

Yeah, I hated that young woman (definitely not a lady). Sending a $0.69 payment? Really? That nasty girl acted like a spoiled, entitled 12 year old, and showed the same level of reasoning.

[rcc]

I wonder if any of the litigants come here. lol

[AngelaHunter]

5 minutes ago, rcc said:

I wonder if any of the litigants come here. lol

I recall that happening twice. The one I remember best was on the JJ forum, where "Lyrical Lipzz" made an appearance to relate how JJ and the "managers" are a bunch of "Janky masons".

ETA: There was the lazy IT guy who popped into this forum as well.

Edited November 12, 2021 by AngelaHunter

[rcc]

21 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I recall that happening twice. The one I remember best was on the JJ forum, where "Lyrical Lipzz" made an appearance to relate how JJ and the "managers" are a bunch of "Janky masons".

ETA: There was the lazy IT guy who popped into this forum as well.

Were any snarky comments objected to by them?

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, rcc said:

Were any snarky comments objected to by them?

Ms. Lipzz had no problem with the snarky comments. She just wanted to tell us why she was "sueing" JJ and the manager.

I found it. Scroll down nearly to the bottom to see Ms. Lipzz post, and there's more on the page following that one.

https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/4784-all-episodes-talk-all-rise/page/310/#comments

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by AngelaHunter