The People's Court - General Discussion

[Pepper the Cat]

I wanted to hear about the purple gun too!!
 

[AngelaHunter]

After taking a little gander around Google, I saw many purple guns but think I prefer the pink "Hello Kitty" model:

 

 

[Guest]

On 12/24/2021 at 5:54 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Best Wishes to all you snarkers!!! 🎅

 

 

I am just catching up.  Hmmm….it’s too late for this year but lookout next holiday season. My signature photo is all set to go. 

[AngelaHunter]

I don't know about anyone else but I'm enjoying these new cases. I love this contract or service stuff with a total absence of violence or vandalism.

First is plaintiff who is no shrinking violet. She found def. somewhere and hired him to build a little deck for her pool, which was only 3' deep. She wanted to replace the pool with something deeper, so asked def to make the ladder and platform 6" above the pool. She texted this info to him along with a picture. But gee- he's a busy guy, deletes his texts, doesn't remember what she asked for and said anyone knows you need to reiterate what you want. Of course neither of them believe in written contracts. I'm guessing D is not licensed and gets paid cash.

He says she starts belittling, berating, and insulting him. Judging by her affect here, we know that's true. But take a look at the job he did and I'm thinking she didn't berate him enough. The first step from the ground is about 2' high, half the steps are in some cement he threw down and the other half nailed to something else and the deck itself is so tilted it could be used in a funhouse. He says in order to fix it he would have to tear it all down and start over. Exactly. P wants the money she paid him - some 975$ - plus what it will cost to get it redone. Don't think so. Because of his pitiful job she gets back  all she paid.

Then we had super dumbass Mr. Morrola who sold some kind of lighting fixture on eBay, simply dumped it in a box on top of a thin layer of brown paper and took to def's shipping place. D's 16-year-old daughter works there and says the package needs more filling around the light to stop it rattling. D watches on camera as the daughter takes a bunch more brown paper and hands it to Mr. Morrola and he packs it. No bubble wrap, no peanuts, just a little paper is fine with him. Now he wants the value of the item because of course it broke.  He paid for insurance, but after the pics of the ridiculous packing, the insurance co. refuses to pay, quite rightly. Why should he be compensated for being a dumbass?

"How much did you sell it for?" JM asks him. "450$" he answers immediately. JM wants to know why, in his answer, he said he sold it for 200$? She's majorly pissed off about his lying and attempted scam. "I don't know!" P replies. Whoever wrote out his dictated answer must have changed it for the lulz.

Dumbass P gets defensive. "It was worth 1,000$!" Yeah, so? Now he wants replacement value. He's a big loser and in the hall he tells Doug, "She had her daughter working there. A 16-year-old doesn't know what she's doing!" Apparently neither does a stupid, thick-headed, lying 60-year-old.

On a petty note, have we seen the height of the false-eyelash thing yet? Def had the biggest I've seen yet.

Finally we had the Mr. Fulmore who bought some old car from Def, along with an extended warranty from a third-party company. He's here suing the D because the engine "had blew". That was covered but for some reason he thinks D should pay for his car rental while his beater was out of service for quite some time. He says the garage promised they'd find and install a new engine in 14hrs. Sure they did.

I understand his confusion, since he actually didn't know if his car was leased or financed. When JM asks, he says. "It was leased. I was financing it." She realizes he's actually unable to answer that so she goes to Def. who informs her P bought the car and it was financed. Good lord.

The warranty place is obligated to pay 100$ for rental, which they did. The Def was not, since he never gave the warranty. P can't understand that either. He wanted 1700$ and gets 220$ but I forget why.

In the judges's chambers we find out that John fixed a traffic ticket for his wife, and got his friend, who drove drunk, off the hook. JJ rationalizes that by saying he wasn't "that" drunk. Nice.

JM reveals she helped out her friend, who owed in the range of 8K for toll fees. I guess it pays to have judges or lawyers as friends or family who can help you weasel out of paying for the bad things you do.

[Guest]

Tough cookie defendant in Case 1 not only deserved all she was asking for but an additional $500 because tearing down that Rube Goldberg contraption was going to cost her bucks. 
 

And yes, plaintiff in Case 2 was a moron. 
 

I missed the discussion of the drunk friends and fixed tickets.  I’m glad I did. I don’t find that subject entertaining nor do I think John is a good guy for doing that. Not at all. 

Edited January 5, 2022 by PsychoKlown

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

 I’m glad I did. I don’t find that subject entertaining nor do I think John is a good guy for doing that. Not at all. 

I was pretty surprised. He got his friend's drunk driving charge dismissed on a "speedy trial technicality" and his wife's ticket dismissed with a judge-to-judge wink/wink. I found it not amusing at all and was surprised he admitted this. He says his friend, who wasn't "really intoxicated" learned his lesson. What lesson would that be?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

He says his friend, who wasn't "really intoxicated" learned his lesson. What lesson would that be?

Probably the lesson to stay on friendly terms with the good judge(s)

I had one client years ago who insisted his drinking did not impair his reflexes in driving. I was at a loss how to get through to him until I remembered that he had a two year old son who meant everything to him. 

I simply posed the question to him “what would you do if your son was killed by a drunk driver who also believed he wasn’t impaired”?

I would like to pose a similar question to the judges - what if your friend crashed into your daughters?  Would your attitude be as cavalier?

I think we all know the answer on that one.

 

 

 

[AngelaHunter]

13 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

I would like to pose a similar question to the judges - what if your friend crashed into your daughters?  Would your attitude be as cavalier?

JM certainly gets angry when litigants are found to have driven recklessly or while drunk even if they say they had the usual two drinks.

"What if you had crashed into a busload of nuns??" I never got that one since I don't know why their lives would be more valuable than say,  MINE,  but whatevs!

I guess she never asked John's friend, "What if you had crashed into one of my beautiful, talented, adorable, smart, SJW daughters who have never done anything wrong but even when they  did and drew on the walls, those circles were perfect?"

[AngelaHunter]

My head is spinning after watching the fuckwittage of today's cases.

Two enormous faces, government scamming, disability, hiding assets so as not to mess up said government payouts, sneaky cheque-cashing, outright thievery, a loan to P of 2400$ "IN! CASH!" from 13 years ago, FB blocking/unblocking/libel. Douglas does not try to hide his extreme skepticism.  All I got is that calling Def a "pill-popping thief" was not liable, since she is indeed a pill-popping thief, who appeared to be under the influence here. P says she once caught D stealing HER pills from her purse but never mentioned it to D.

Def stole 800$ from P's bank account. Her name was still on the account because P put it there 10 YEARS ago (and never removed it) to cash D's inheritance cheque so the government wouldn't find out. Why should SHE pay for all those big food bills and pills if Byrd and JM can pay for them? SHE says she put the money in P's account not to hide it, but  "In case something happens to me I want it to go to my godson" who is the P's unfortunate child. I guess she stopped caring about the godson since she removed all her money from P's account. She is a true BS artiste!  800$ for P. In the hall, D declares she will never pay that 800$. Doug informs P how "stupid" she was to put the big ol' pill-poppin' scammer's name on her account. "Yes, sir," says P.

Something new - a SSFathero4 - unemployed, wants big vehicle to cart the kiddies around (and needed a motorcycle which is an odd choice for the jobless SSF04) finds D's hoop-tea on - where else? - FB, that enclave of reputable sellers of "numerous amounts" of skeevy junk.  D says vehickle, some old Avalanche, to be sold for parts on one his many ads, has a "bonded title" but never mentioned the lien on it to P. D says he told P about the lien and messed-up title and told him to start a sojourn of salavaged veehickles, trace it back to the Great Flood, etc and he'll have his title. P can't get title, hideous Def yammers on and on and on. Anyway, P gets his 2200$ back. D continues to rant and rave. It was irksome that he not only gets to keep the 2200$ but gets his old heap back to resell to another naive dumbass like P. I don't know why he was fighting so hard. He actually won too.

Douglas got a lot more amusement from all this than I did. I love how he is now openly smirking and laughing at the idiots we see here and their dopey life decisions.

We find out from the judges that were they stranded on a desert island, John would like to have Chris Rock(!!) with him to keep him in perpetual gales of laughter, and JM would pick Martha Stewart to make the island calm and pretty. John, who doesn't know how to quit when he's ahead, starts elaborating on how so many lesser men would choose a gorgeous model or actress, but he would not! No sir! Never! Yeah, you better say that, John. Of course, he finishes by saying his top choice would be someone who really LIKES him, and that would be his loving wife. They clasp hands. The End.

[Carolina Girl]

20 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

800$ for P. In the hall, D declares she will never pay that 800$.

Technically, no she won't, the show will.

But my God what an effing LIAR that woman was.  "I put it in her account for a CD for my Godson."   Yeah, right.  Because HER bank couldn't do a CD.  I'd like proof that that CD was ever issued.   And yes, dingbat - taking that $800 WAS theft, but unfortunately she was still on the account, so there's no way she'd be prosecuted for it.  

But plaintiff was an idiot for not taking her off the account IMMEDIATELY after the initial transaction was completed.   Wonder if she's pulled this stunt with her other friends?

[CrazyInAlabama]

On today's new show "Stressing Out a Customer"   First case was an ebay seller/buyer conflict over perfumes and lotions, including all kinds of nasty behavior by both parties.    This had already been resolved by ebay, so it's dismissed. 

Case 2 is Geo the dog, which plaintiff claims is a Golden Retriever (I had a similar dog, half Lab/half Golden, or maybe only a quarter Golden).    Plaintiff sold the dog to defendant, and now demands the dog back.    Defendant says his kids bonded with the dog.   Defendant even offered to let dog visit plaintiff for a weekend, that's a horrible idea, and dog wouldn't come back.     $500 to plaintiff, and defendant keeps the dog.   

Edited January 7, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

11 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

On today's new show "Stressing Out a Customer"   First case was an ebay seller/buyer conflict over perfumes and lotions, including all kinds of nasty behavior by both parties.    This had already been resolved by ebay, so it's dismissed. 

Case 2 is Gio or Geo the dog, which plaintiff claims is a Golden Retriever (I had a similar dog, half Lab/half Golden, or maybe only a quarter Golden).    Plaintiff sold the dog to defendant, and now demands the dog back.    Defendant says his kids bonded with the dog.   Defendant even offered to let dog visit plaintiff for a weekend, that's a horrible idea, and dog wouldn't come back.     

Thanks. My show was butted into today, but after reading this, I'm fine with missing it.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Thanks. My show was butted into today, but after reading this, I'm fine with missing it.

One thing I must add.  I had no idea that there are people who will buy used bottles of perfume and lotion on eBay.

What’s next?  Used bath soap?  Feminine products?  Toothbrushes?  Kleenex?

I hate to be the voice of gloom and doom but there’s no hope people.  No hope.

[AZChristian]

15 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

One thing I must add.  I had no idea that there are people who will buy used bottles of perfume and lotion on eBay.

What’s next?  Used bath soap?  Feminine products?  Toothbrushes?  Kleenex?

I hate to be the voice of gloom and doom but there’s no hope people.  No hope.

And why used bottles of expensive perfume instead of new dentures?

[Carolina Girl]

That pink-haired attention whore in the first case was not nearly as adorable and cute as she thought she was.  I haven’t wanted to punch an EBay seller this bad since Kelli Filkins.  

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

That pink-haired attention whore in the first case was not nearly as adorable and cute as she thought she was.  I haven’t wanted to punch an EBay seller this bad since Kelli Filkins.  

So true.  

She was auditioning.  I really think so.

Obnoxious doesn’t come close to describing that vile guttersnipe.  Above I asked who would be interested in buying used perfumes and lotions.  I suppose the real question is who would be selling their used perfumes and lotions to strangers on eBay.

Still puzzled.

 

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

I hate to be the voice of gloom and doom but there’s no hope people.

I've been saying that for some time and this show does nothing to change my mind.

 

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

vile guttersnipe

Now I'm really glad I missed this. Guttersnipes are not on my "must watch" list.

9 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

 Wonder if she's pulled this stunt with her other friends?

She's a big trashbag who has probably ripped everyone she knows with her, "Poor little disabled me. You know my situation. Help me!"

 

[Guest]

Repeat today.

Feuding sisters.  One sitting in a chair that’s in a plastic garment bag.  

Boring.

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Feuding sisters.

Tried to watch it this time. Failed.

Did watch some of the lying, overgrown boys feuding about their toys, I didn't pay attention to it the first time, but this time, I was kind of transfixed at how someone can have a foot-wide goatee.

"Ham Radio Horror".  Thank you, Levin, you putz. Reducing this show to your own level of TMZ shlockiness is much appreciated.

[AngelaHunter]

Today's cases are from Nov 2 but I never saw them.

Skipped the horse case with triple-time FFing.

Ms.Gatling: A breeder and SSM03 who came across as something of a dingbat wants 10,000$ from her former landlord - 3 times her sec. deposit and 3K for her emotional distress plus attorney fees and all that shit.

She lets her kids run wild in her upstairs apartment, Neighbours are not fond of the kids' "clumpy" feet and complain. They are also really not fond of Ms. Gatling and her loverboy/b/f/baby daddy(?) a violent, out-of-control miscreant who has a whole bunch of charges against him and they complain about the racket and yelling from the lovebirds' fighting like wild beasts. I only saw "assault" and "endangerment of a child" on the lengthy list of his misdeeds and crimes as JM read them. Raekwon also kicked in the front door while having yet another hissy fit. I think Ms. Gatling should be suing him for her emotional distress, but hey - she picked him! I cannot express how much I hate it that anyone can squat and squirt out as many kids as they like, no matter how unfit or stupid they are, or how hellish is the situation they are bringing them into. Ugh.

The landlord, Ms. Renetz, has a not very helpful defense. Yes, she has the bill to repair the door, but not with her. Well, of course not.  She gets to keep money for the new doorframe plus the smashed blinds and a painted wall and P gets awarded something like 1300$. No 10K lottery for you, Ms. SSMO3 with the impeccable taste in men.

In an old and tired story, we had Ms. Bell who is suing for the cost of teeshirts ("Ashirting Disaster". How many ways are there to say, "Fuck off, Levin"?) for which she paid nearly 1000$. This is for a 1-year-old's birthday. Yeah, so we could ask why she didn't put that 1K plus whatever else it cost to put on this big show-off do for 100 people into a fund for this child's education, but we're tired of asking that. I guess JM is tired of asking as well. All that money would have made a pretty good start and maybe that way the kid wouldn't end up saying "tooken" and "the shirts wasn't ready". But oh, well. The show must go on!

Def, who was to make these shirts but didn't make all of them, had a few excuses for not delivering the product. His apartment got "shagged" and then Amazon "was trippin'" and didn't send the shirts to him in time so he had to buy them elsewhere which cut into his profits and that's the client's problem, I guess. P had to send her mom and her unty to get the shirts, but there wasn't no youth sizes in them and it was all such an ordeal. I don't know if she was suing for emotional distress too, since I checked out there.

 

[AngelaHunter]

I never saw today's first case, about the P deciding to take a cruise with and send money to someone she had never even seen in person and just 'met' on some card game site online!

Turns out the globe-trotting def is a crook who just decided to keep all the money when the cruises were cancelled. Considering her casual demeanor at being accused of scamming, I got the impression she may have done this before and gotten away with it.

P shares that she and Def talked about everything, stuff that "I'm not going to get into on television. That's not air for this, not for this".  When I think of the sordid events and desires we hear all the time from hypersexual litigants, I breathed an immense sigh of relief at this unusual discretion.  Trust me, Ms. Cellphome - I doubt anyone was champing at the bit to hear it, not even JM who usually loves the airing of dirty laundry.

"Cruising for a bruising"? Geeze Louise, Levin. Seriously? We used to say that in elementary school a hundred years ago, but I've never heard it from an adult and not even from kids in the last 30 or more years. You're such a silly old "sack of garbage", to use one of your own charming phrases.

I never saw yesterday's first case either, with the incredibly awful, highly unlikeable, arrogant, smirking, obnoxious litigants fighting over a glass shower panel. Def contractor hurt his foot, is milking it for all it's worth, is getting unemployment payments (didn't he say he owned the business?) plus probably COVID supplements, etc. Why the hell would he even think about limping over to P's house and laying down a new bead of his special, super-expensive, exclusive, superior silicone? Go buy the stuff and do it yourself, you insufferable P.

[AngelaHunter]

I didn't think babies could file court cases, but according to JM, P. Nunez is a baby. Oh, I see. He's what used to be classified as a man, at 22 years old but is now seen as a child. His aunty sits by his side and answers for him.

Nunez is suing Dr. Brockstein for messing up his root canal procedure which was being done for the second time. The dentist has been doing this for 40 years and specializes in root canals, but Aunty Nunez who is a receptionist at another dentist's office (she's picked up a few dental terms and has maybe Googled) gives her professional opinion about why what Dr. Brockstein - who was recommend by the dentist Aunty works for -  did was negligent and wrong, causing Baby Nunez to have an owwie, so they want Def to pay for a new crown for the tooth.

Def explains exactly the problems that can arise from having this procedure redone while trying to preserve the original crown and save the patient money.  Baby Nunez signed a waiver which states all these risks in detail. "I had to sign it or he wouldn't do the tooth!" he whines. Yes, dear - that's the reason for the waiver. I guess Aunty didn't know that either. That he consented to this shouldn't count! What about the Special Snowflake law?  Pay for your own tooth.

Mr. Robinson is a hoarder. He lives in a condo and his parking space contains an old car and crap he's picked up over the years, plus a cart he uses to haul his junk home. He wants Def to pay for all this crap after the clunker and trash got hauled away. It seems even the veeHICKle was packed to the roof with his "antiques and collectibles". I can imagine. The HOA president, Ms. Thompson, informed all the tenants that their insurance company would no longer give them a policy if all the junk/fire hazards weren't cleared out of the parking stalls by the time they did an inspection.

According to him one of his treasures was an antique bed he was going to sell - someday. First he says it was leaning against his car, then that it was IN the car. JM asks if the car was operable. He says it was. Def says it wasn't. Then JM asks him if it was registered. He says it was. Ms. Johson shows a pic of expired license plate. He shows JM the condo rules, but only reads part of the sentence that says tenants may use their parking stalls for storage. JM, who has a copy of the rules completes the sentence... "of their vehicles".

Ms. Thompson says that in addition to written notice, she called Mr. Robinson to remind him to get rid of the garbage heap. She says he started cursing at her and told her to do what she wanted with it and that he didn't care.

If that was good enough for him, it's good enough for JM, and his case is dismissed. I'm betting that parking stall nest is once again feathered with a number of antiques and collectibles.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

That sounds like a good episode.  So, my channel had to show some basketball tournament that bumped TPC. 

[rcc]

I just couldn't stand looking at the junk man's fugly beard!

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, rcc said:

I just couldn't stand looking at the junk man's fugly beard!

Funny you should say that. Those dangling, dancing hairballs on the edges of were not pleasant to look at.

[AngelaHunter]

 Ms. Concalves suing the def for 5K for defaming her on FB: Def hired P to clean her apartment, which was empty at the time. P says she and her helper spent two hours cleaning for which she was paid 150$. Def says P did absolutely nothing, but paid her before she inspected the work. No one takes pictures of anything. P "didn't have time" and D just didn't. Come on, people! It's not like you have to do what we did in prehistoric times - go get the camera, go to the store, buy film, take the shots you want, then a bunch of pics of random things to use up the film, go back to the store, put the film in, wait for it to be developed and then go retrieve it. "Didn't have time" is no longer a valid excuse.

Def went on FB where she had found P originally (another Fabulous Facebook Fiasco) and merely said she paid the money, got no service and the place was left untouched. She's allowed to relate her experiences and opinions! That is not libel or defamation, you fool. It's a review. Def learned not to pay before giving the work at least a cursory glance. Better late than never!

Ms. Concalves calls JM "Miss Judge". If she had appeared to be brighter, I might think that was a sly dig. Sadly, it was not. Zippo for her.

 

What about SSMO?, La'Miera, suing her landlord for 3K because she fell down the stairs of her dwelling? She was two months pregnant when she fell!

How many of you get someone (I think it was one of her baby daddies who maybe was going to share the windfall) to video you from behind as you walk down your stairs? You know, just in case you fall on those janky steps and just in case you want to sue the landlord?

As JM observed, the stairs were wet, she was wearing running shoes and she didn't hold the railing.

JM wants to know if La'Miera informed any housing inspectors of these hazardous conditions? Well, no - she's only 26 and doesn't know how to do any of that stuff. She just knows how to get pregnant and plot to shake down her landlord. She refused to pay rent for a couple of months, so def. landlord wins on the countersuit.  Backfire!

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Refusing to Budge", a new episode of whiny people.   

Case 1-Plaintiff went to look at a room rental, put down a $650 deposit on 1 April, and changed her mind about living there.    She wants her deposit back, $650, but landlord says she wouldn't return the key, so he couldn't rent the place for a month, so he's refusing to return her deposit.    Landlord claims plaintiff finally left the key at the house three weeks later.   Plaintiff didn't even call landlord and say she wasn't moving in, and wanted a refund until 3 May.    Plaintiff's big reason for not moving in was she didn't like the other tenants she met. 

Plaintiff loses, defendant keeps the deposit. 

Case 2-Couple hired defendant to work on their pool, he did the job, finished, and they want defendant to come back and redo the job for free.  The defendant replaced the filter, and fixed the broken pool pipes, but plaintiff doesn't want to pay to change the pipes.   The pool pipes are black flex pipe, and to dig up the old pipes, replace with PVC, and make everything straight would cost a bundle.    Plaintiff woman is also a NY attorney.  Plaintiff loses.  

[AngelaHunter]

18 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 1-Plaintiff went to look at a room rental, put down a $650 deposit on 1 April, and changed her mind about living there.

When Ms.Wyte first visited the home she noticed there was dust. However, she decides she can live with this dust as the homeowner had Thomas Kinkade prints (I kind of doubt they were originals seeing as how def. is also a big fan of Franklin Mint commemorative plates and has to stick CL strangers in his home to pay his bills) and Ms.Wyte is a really big admirer, like, a MAJOR fan of Kinkade so decides to move in, pays the money and takes the key.

She changes her mind two days later when she meets the housekeeper who, in Ms. Wyte's opinion, appeared to be on drugs. She didn't feel safe moving there with this drugged-up maid, so two days later tells D she wants her non-refundable deposit back even though she didn't return the key for weeks. Five days later? Maybe seven. Maybe more. Ms. Wyte seems to have a little trouble with the truth.

The fact that she bought a house less than a month later had nothing to do with her backing out of the deal. She laments her "rash" decision to move in at all, and someone else should suffer a financial loss due to her errors of judgment, not her. Sorry, Ms. Wyte. You're out of luck.

31 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Couple hired defendant to work on their pool

The strident Serafima and the silent Vladimir want back ALL the money they paid def, even though he did the work. No, of course Serafima has no estimate from someone else on the cost of straightening some pipes out. She's a lawyer, but didn't know she'd need proof of her damages. JM asks what kind of law she practices but my screen went pink (a common occurance on this show) so I didn't get the answer. JM was very generous giving the Ps 400$, for which they are not grateful in the least. She's a lawyer! They should get free work! If def had any receipts for materials he bought they would have won nothing, but why would he keep receipts when costs are being disputed?

Then I saw something about 1500$ Jeri-curls for a 90-year-old woman but by then I'd had enough of litigants.

Judge John says, in response to a question, that he can't think of any "pros" about living in a house with 4 strident women. He mentions how JM is often bellowing about who stole her stuff, clothes, jewelry, etc (her darling daughters) and JJ comments on her very deep voice and asks if she's ever been mistaken for a man when on the phone. "No", she says, "Have you?" Burn.

Is the mask of bliss slipping?

[Pepper the Cat]

Plaintiff in case 2 claimed to be a criminal lawyer.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Pepper the Cat said:

Plaintiff in case 2 claimed to be a criminal lawyer.

Thanks. I guess she didn't think any proof or evidence is required for a rinky-dink civil case.

[DoctorK]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff woman is also a NY attorney

Another arrogant and entitled lawyer. I did enjoy her useless and ineffectove frothing at the mouth

[Guest]

I didn’t like anyone in yesterday’s cases and today ain’t looking so good either.

That’s all I got.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Oh no!   Today's new episode is titled "Heartbroken Over a Puppy".    

Case 1-Plaintiff bought puppy from defendant, and plaintiff is suing for the cost of the puppy, vet bills, and cremation bills.    Defendant says plaintiff switched foods for puppy, he told her not to do that, and says it's plaintiff fault the puppy got sick and died.   The puppy was a Shih Tzu, cost $600.   Plaintiff already has another, older Shih Tzu.    Plaintiff says breeder/defendant wanted her to take the puppy at five weeks (at least three weeks too young).    Plaintiff took puppy way too young, she was surprised the puppy couldn't eat the little square Cesar's food (no teeth).    

On day six, puppy got sick, and went to vet.  Puppy later died from infection.   Defendant says deposit was placed at 4 weeks old, not 1 week like the plaintiff says.   Plaintiff emailed defendant that puppy was sick, and defendant says she should have brought puppy back to him, to be put back with the mother. 

I hate to break it to Judge Marilyn, but switching a puppy from food to food, and over again is awful for them.    I suspect the puppy was only five weeks or so, but why did plaintiff take the puppy that young?  Why didn't plaintiff take puppy to the vet on day one?   Instead she kept changing foods, and only took puppy to the vet.     Defendant swears plaintiff told him she wanted puppy at that age, and was going to feed the puppy raw food.   

Defendant was feeding watered down puppy chow.   Plaintiff told her vet in the vet notes that she was feeding raw diet.    Vet notes say raw diet fed, and food hurt the puppy, and puppy should still have been with the mother. 

Neither litigant should ever have an animal in their care.  Plaintiff has multiple other dogs too. 

Each litigant pays half of $1,079 so, $540 each. 

Case 2-PLaintiff loaned defendant money, and once they had a fight over a girlfriend, plaintiff wants the $4,000+ paid back.   The twist is defendant and plaintiff have never met in person, even though they've been 'friends' for years. 

Defendant wins because there was no expectation of repayment to plaintiff.   All of the loans happened over years.     

 

[AngelaHunter]

21 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-PLaintiff loaned defendant money

I skipped with great haste the puppy case. Ugh.

Just as "Ugh" is seeing the proliferation of the man-child. These are two chalky-faced men, at least 30 years old. Neither of them looks as though they've breathed fresh air or seen the sun in years. In fact, def looks in such poor condition at his young age I really fear for his longevity.

These "boys" having been gaming for the last 15 years. I guess they pretend they're battling Nazis or space aliens or maybe zombies and emerging triumphant over their adversaries. That's one thing when you're 15 but quite another when you're 30.

Def is always broke, but P wants to keep playing with him, so sends him money to buy - what else? - gaming equipment. D is still broke and lost his job (Woo hoo! More time for him to sit on his ample buttocks, gaming!), so P sends him 3,000$ while bragging how he's sitting on "stacks" (of money)!! D  is ever so grateful for this gift, to which way-cool P replies, "Dat socialism, bruh!" and "I love  you, bro!" and all that silly shit. They've never even seen each other's faces.

Douglas is watching with an expression that says, "This is how grown men spend all their free time?"

It's not so lovey-dovey when P finally manages somehow to find a woman who will put up with him and his games, and D is jealous because now P is not spending enough time playing games with HIM. Maybe use all that spare time to job hunt? P says he thought he had COVID and D quips that maybe he got it from his Chinese girlfriend. P, Mr. Noonan, is hurt, uncomfortable and claims D manipulated him to send money so wants it all back. Maybe his mother or his girlfriend cares. JM does not, is frankly disgusted at a man this age crying about being manipulated and says a not-so-fond farewell to both whiny boys.

I do have an online friend on the other side of the planet. We chat every other week and have been doing so for the last 7 years and I very much enjoy our chats. Not once has she complained about money and never have I sent her thousands of dollars, or even one dollar.

[AZChristian]

4 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

I didn’t like anyone in yesterday’s cases and today ain’t looking so good either.

That’s all I got.

Lucky me.  Yesterday was pre-empted.  Today should have been, too.

Question from viewers, "What kind of cars do you drive?"  Sheesh.  WHO CARES?????

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Lucky me.  Yesterday was pre-empted.  Today should have been, too.

Question from viewers, "What kind of cars do you drive?"  Sheesh.  WHO CARES?????

So, so true.

Who writes those questions?  “Hey Harvey…”.  “Hey JM…”.  “Hey JJ….”

And I’ve snarked before about the moronic (made up) questions posed but their answers are even more irritating with the focus of how they’re a perfect family.  Just listened to a podcast on the Chris Watts family and their projection on social media vs. reality.

I’ve noticed that I’m eating lunch earlier and not so quick to get to my tv at 2:00.

Maybe February sweeps will bring out more interesting cases and interesting people.

Here’s hoping…..

 

[rcc]

Yesterday was pre-empted for me too and  I am sorry I missed the judges at the end. Today's question was stupid but yesterday's makes me want to see JM's reaction.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

Who writes those questions?  “Hey Harvey…”.  “Hey JM…”.  “Hey JJ….”

You know it's gotta be the head Clown, Levin. "Hey" is a word Levin uses often. Maybe he confers with his little TMZ dork squad: "Hey, guys! What stupid question should I make up to ask the judges?"

[Guest]

13 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

You know it's gotta be the head Clown, Levin. "Hey" is a word Levin uses often. Maybe he confers with his little TMZ dork squad: "Hey, guys! What stupid question should I make up to ask the judges?"

So while they want us to think these are viewers questions “Hey JM, I have a neighbor who walks around in his house naked and I can see him through my windows…..”  They really aren’t viewers questions because each and every one of them start with “Hey…”

If I were to write a question to the Lovebird Judges I would not start with a “Hey…” It would be more like “Dear JM and JJ I am a a licensed counselor and would appreciate your tips and tricks on rearing the most beautiful, wonderful, talented, socially conscious, talented, beautiful, modest ladies in today’s society.  Surely you deserve the highest award granted for bestowing onto the world these three works of art.”

Unless questions do come in and Harvey and Co. muck with the wording.  But then again I’ve never heard of them asking for questions posed to the judges.

And on a side note…Doug is starting to show his age.  My husband walked in the room while Doug was slashing a loser and said that Doug looked like he was dipped in wax.  

Sacrilege.

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

And on a side note…Doug is starting to show his age.  My husband walked in the room while Doug was slashing a loser and said that Doug looked like he was dipped in wax.  

😄 He's 84 and still better than the now-unseen, grabby Former Hall Clown. Doug has had a very interesting life and has been married to the same woman for 60 years!

Funny how I found him annoying on the old Judge Wapner's TPC, but after years of the FHC, I now adore him. It's all about perspective, I guess.

4 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

If I were to write a question to the Lovebird Judges I would not start with a “Hey…” It would be more like “Dear JM and JJ I am a a licensed counselor and would appreciate your tips and tricks on rearing the most beautiful, wonderful, talented, socially conscious, talented, beautiful, modest ladies in today’s society.  Surely you deserve the highest award granted for bestowing onto the world these three works of art.”

I read this first thing today and I'm still sniggering. Double 😄😄

[AngelaHunter]

Warning: Do not drink every time you hear the word "furniture".

Unty Tamale suing niece Shameeka for defaming her on good ol' FB, the social media platform that allows families/friends to keep in fond touch and share during times of separation. It's also a platform for a screeching, foul-mouthed lunatic like Shameeka to video her obscenity-laced ranting and raving while wearing a variety of puzzling headgear, pausing her last tirade only long enough to turn and check what she's got cooking on the stove. Douglas is clearly appalled at this very trashy, disgusting spewing of venom. JM informs her she needs mental health care.

What caused all this insanity? Old furniture is what, which Shameeka left in grandma's basement for 9 years while she led a drifting, transient life in many states but now is situated and wants it back. Grandma died or something and unty moved out and left it there since it wasn't her responsibility.

Did "Little Rodney" sell it? DId her sister's father(?) say it was moldy and throw it out? It's a mystery for sure. There was also something about stealing or whatever, but I forget. Does anyone give a rat's ass? JM doesn't and neither do I.

The fence fight was boring and stupid, notable for only two things:

1 -JM, who is always all about "woman power" (and I'm sure all her beautiful, smart, talented, perfect SJW daughters feel the same way) and rips apart women litigants who claim the "I'm just a poor little girl" defense is stunned, floored and must ask several times if P, Ms Torres(?) built her fence herself? BY herself? With her own actual hands? Yes, she did. It's not as though she said she'd built a Star Trek Transporter or Universal Translator. Believe it or not, JM, a little woman CAN put up a fence.

2 - Trying to figure out WTF Def. Michael had on his head kept me from turning this off. Was it a wig? A wool beanie? Some black dye that spilled? Some sort of wig-hat? I still don't know.

Oh, and litigants? Don't wave a pen around while testifying. It doesn't make you look serious or studious at all. If you simply must wave it, make it a nice pen at the very least, and not some worn-out BIC with no cap.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Warning: Do not drink every time you hear the word "furniture".

Correction:.  Fur-Nit-Churr

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Unty Tamale suing niece Shameeka for defaming her on good ol' FB, the social media platform that allows families/friends to keep in fond touch and share during times of separation. It's also a platform for a screeching, foul-mouthed lunatic like Shameeka to video her obscenity-laced ranting and raving while wearing a variety of puzzling headgear, pausing her last tirade only long enough to turn and check what she's got cooking on the stove. Douglas is clearly appalled at this very trashy, disgusting spewing of venom. JM informs her she needs mental health care.

And this is why I adore Doug.  I have an older friend who is retired and lives comfortably.  In his words “I’ve seen a lot of shit and I just don’t care anymore”.  He calls them as he sees them..not in a mean way but you’re going to get honesty with him even if you don’t want it.    A wonderful evening is sitting with him, drinking wine and eating lots of appetizers.  His stories/comments/observations are phenomenal.  I see Doug in the same way.  So what if he offends someone?  He’s 84 years and I am sure he’s saved enough for a wonderful life too.  

When I mentioned to my husband that Doug is 84, works and is married to the same woman for 60 years (thank you AngelaHunter) and is entitled to looking a bit “waxy” my eternally sarcastic spouse said “that’s why he’s still married after 60 years…he works outside the home to give his wife space.”  

Ain’t love grand???

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

What caused all this insanity? Old furniture is what, which Shameeka left in grandma's basement for 9 years while she led a drifting, transient life in many states but now is situated and wants it back. Grandma died or something and unty moved out and left it there since it wasn't her responsibility.

Did "Little Rodney" sell it? DId her sister's father(?) say it was moldy and throw it out? It's a mystery for sure. There was also something about stealing or whatever, but I forget. Does anyone give a rat's ass? JM doesn't and neither do I.

Give kudos to Shameeka.  She has a friend who was cooking breakfast naked and a fire started.  Tragic.  Shameeka  prizes her apartment and although she was quite irritated with Aunty she still kept an eye on the sizzling food.  Good for her.

And Shameeka’s mom just popped up out of nowhere looking a bit fuzzy.  I did chuckle when JM said “can you raise your hand”.  I think JM was a stunned as I was.  Poor Shameeka’s mom…because you know, Shameeka is her daughter.

Would love to be a fly on the wall during the holidays when that jolly bunch gathers together.  

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

The fence fight was boring and stupid, notable for only two things:

1 -JM, who is always all about "woman power" (and I'm sure all her beautiful, smart, talented, perfect SJW daughters feel the same way) and rips apart women litigants who claim the "I'm just a poor little girl" defense is stunned, floored and must ask several times if P, Ms Torres(?) built her fence herself? BY herself? With her own actual hands? Yes, she did. It's not as though she said she'd built a Star Trek Transporter or Universal Translator. Believe it or not, JM, a little woman CAN put up a fence.

2 - Trying to figure out WTF Def. Michael had on his head kept me from turning this off. Was it a wig? A wool beanie? Some black dye that spilled? Some sort of wig-hat? I still don't know.

A question for the ages.

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Oh, and litigants? Don't wave a pen around while testifying. It doesn't make you look serious or studious at all. If you simply must wave it, make it a nice pen at the very least, and not some worn-out BIC with no cap.

This is awesome and should be printed on the release form for The People’s Court under the section Suggestions for Contestants.  

I suppose we should be grateful (again) that the pen waved about the screen didn’t have Joe’s Diner or Lucky Ace Strip Club emblazoned on it.  It would have certainly taken away from the seriousness of these court proceedings.

Have a wonderful and safe weekend everyone.  

[AngelaHunter]

33 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

And this is why I adore Doug.  I have an older friend who is retired and lives comfortably.  In his words “I’ve seen a lot of shit and I just don’t care anymore”.  He calls them as he sees them..not in a mean way but you’re going to get honesty with him even if you don’t want it.    A wonderful evening is sitting with him, drinking wine and eating lots of appetizers.  His stories/comments/observations are phenomenal.  I see Doug in the same way.  So what if he offends someone?  

Exactly! Old people don't care if someone gets "pissed off". Just as Judge Wapner talked about Levin standing on his little box - of course it would be little - and didn't give a shit if Levin didn't like it. Why should he care? He and Doug had and have very long, successful lives and no longer need worry what any dumb litigant or pissant like Levin thinks of them.

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Rental Ruckus" new episode (I think they're all new this week). 

Case 1-tenant claims because of his PTSD from serving in the Navy, that the landlords (who have matching shirts), owe him a rebate on his rent.   Tenant lives in a guest house on the landlord's property, and landlord and son live in the main house.    Plaintiff is paying $1500 a month, and never signed a lease.     Plaintiff claims they block two of his windows with furniture, and stuff, so he can't get fresh air.   So, can plaintiff get egress in case of a fire or other emergency.   Plaintiff wants half of his rent back, and security deposit.    Plaintiff is complaining about noise, and foot traffic, and parties going on. Plaintiff claims the construction is ruining his life, and he can't open his windows.   Defendant son says there isn't any construction, they're just doing yard work.   

Defendant son is suing for the destruction of a bar cart, by plaintiff throwing stuff from the guest house, and over the gate.    The defendant's son have some business with the bar cart.   After defendant's mother called and told him about the throwing items coming over the fence, the police were called, and plaintiff fled the police and was arrested, and the case is pending.    The bar cart destruction has ruined the defendant son's business.   Plaintiff claims the defendants and their noise keep him up all night long.   

Plaintiff doesn't want defendants walking next to his ADU.   Plaintiff has an audio recording of what apparently is a leaf blower, and plaintiff claims it's sawing.  

Since lease was never signed, that makes the plaintiff a month-to-month tenant, and defendants can legally end the tenancy, and evict him.   Nothing stops plaintiff from leaving either.   I think the plaintiff is staying there, and complaining just to make everyone miserable.  

PLaintiff case dismissed.   Plaintiff told to move.   Defendants have no proof of lost wages, but gets $300 to repair the bar cart.  (this case is reason #59687 not to be a landlord). 

Case 2-Plaintiff suing defendant for plumbing damages, and claims the defendant poured concrete down the drains and ruined the plumbing.   Defendant was a tenant of plaintiff,  is counter claiming for harassment from plaintiff, and claims plaintiff keeps coming over when only 15-year-old is home alone, and wants into the house. 

Defendant moving in to the house in February 2021, and was evicted at the end of May 2021.     It was a legal eviction, by the sheriff's department.   Plaintiff claims the defendant wanted him to go to the Christian Charity Center, and they would pay a month's rent for him, but he was over two month's behind already.   Defendant claims the charity would pay two months rent for him.   Plaintiff doesn't have to accept money from the charity for the rent either.  The day defendant was evicted, plaintiff went to the house, and the vent pipes (the pipes on the roof), were blocked with cement.   

Defendant claims plaintiff didn't evict him legally, but the plaintiff did.  Defendant claims he wasn't angry about the eviction, but he's angry on camera. 

When plaintiff turned on the water after the eviction, water backed up in every drain.  There's a plaintiff picture of dried cement mix on the back patio, and an empty Sackcrete (?) bag, and fresh concrete drips on the roof plumbing vent pipe.  Defendant is lying and claiming the concrete stuff on the roof, and the vent is from 'defendant cleaning his van'. On the roof? 

Plumber's statement says they had to jackhammer the drain lines through the concrete slab, and replace everything.   Defendant claims there were a lot of people in and out of the house, and they must have done it.  

Plaintiff gets $2850 for the plumbing repairs, plus court costs, and defendant's case tossed. 

 

[DoctorK]

33 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plumber's statement says they had to jackhammer the drain lines through the concrete slab, and replace everything.   Defendant claims there were a lot of people in and out of the house, and they must have done it.  

That was a fun case. The defendant was full of anger (not just at the plaintiff) and had no control over it. The plaintiff had some of the best evidence for his case I have seen on PC. Others have claimed damage from tenants putting concrete down the drains but this plaintiff had ample incontrovertible proof that it had been done to his house, and the defendant had means, motive and opportunity. The defendant claiming that the hardened concrete on the sides of the roof vent pipe were just sewage overflow backing up through the vent pipe was patently false and as a plumber he knew it, to backup to above roof level, the house would have to been filled to the rafters with sewage.

[AngelaHunter]

25 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 1-tenant claims because of his PTSD from serving in the Navy, that the landlords (who have matching shirts), owe him a rebate on his rent.

This started so badly. Mr. Jerry told landlord he needs a 1-year lease. They refused but he moved in anyway. This dwelling was so terrible, so unlivable that Mr. Jerry wants something like 4500$ back for half the rent he paid - well, when he actually paid it. He wants his security deposit back too, except he's still living there, in these deplorable conditions where the landlord def. has no respect for him. My god - defs were making noise in the yard on Sat. at 1:00p.m. when Jerry was sleeping! Someone was outside making noise at 9:00p.m! They blocked the windows to try to suffocate him! They used a leaf blower and dust came into his place which he likes to keep spic 'n span for entertaining!

Oh, the inhumanity. Poor Jerry was forced to throw heavy objects over the fence to destroy the Mr. De Santos Jr's bar cart. He fled when the cops came and they had to hunt him down. 

Mr. De Santos Sr has no idea how to evict someone, so JM gives him detailed instructions. I hope he follows her advice. In the hall Mr. Jerry concedes to Doug that maybe he might think about moving.

35 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff suing defendant for plumbing damages, and claims the defendant poured concrete down the drains and ruined the plumbing.

Mr. Timothy Tutwell suing the brutish Mr. Owens, his former plumber who dumped tons of cement down the plumbing pipes of the premises he rented from Tutwell, even though he wasn't angry at Mr. Tutwell for giving him the boot just because he didn't pay two month's rent. Tutwell knew his situation and should have overlooked the non-payment.

The evidence of the cement caper has everything except an HD video of Owens doing the damage, including a big bag of cement sitting on the patio, 😄 an invoice from another plumber outlining the cement in all the pipes, floors needing jackhammering, etc.,  but Owen denies it vehemently. Those pipes were clogged since the day he moved in and were from 1965. Not his fault. JM wants to know why all that cement residue is on the roof?

Well, Owens says he cleans out his truck which often has cement in it. "You clean it on the roof?" JM asks. Douglas cracks up. Owens declares, "I don't climb no ladders" and all that cement dripping down the stack pipe? He doesn't know nothing about that. Someone else probably did it.

Mr. Tutwell came to the house trying to get his rent and absolutely terrified Owen's daughter. Mr. Tutwell is one of the least scary people I've ever seen. Tutwell also defamed Owens and harrassed him, for rent owed. 2980$ for Mr. Tutwell.

In the hall, the brute squawks that the judge is biased, she doesn't know nothing about plumbing and he didn't do nothing.

An entertaining day.

[Guest]

Today’s first case: 

[patty1h]

Today's first case "Ripped Off by a Painter" has mother/son plaintiffs suing for a shoddy paint job on their Victorian home.  Forget about that and just go and check out the clown eyebrows that mom and sonny are sporting.   Picture a 60+ year old woman with a lumpy face like Ernest Borgnine and her son as a younger version of this guy from the old Mel Brooks comedy "The Producers", but both with drawn-on black eyebrows.

Edited January 25, 2022 by patty1h

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Ripped Off by a Painter" 

Case 1-Plaintiff hired defendant to paint the exterior of her Victorian home.   Plaintiff paid him $1400 deposit, but when the weather turned bad, and defendant had to stop working until the house dried out.   

Defendant says plaintiff, her son, and friends threatened him, told him they knew where he lived, his wife's name, his kid's name, threatened that they watched his kid walking to school.      Plaintiff's son did part of the job, and then defendant was hired to finish.   

Plaintiff didn't bring her file of information about the job.    Defendant says he agreed to do the job between other jobs, when the humidity was lower.    

Judge Marilyn is getting a real attitude with the defendant, but she certainly seems to be ignoring the threats against defendant's family.  Plaintiff gets her $1400 back. 

Case 2-Plaintiff claims defendant's two unleashed Pit Bulls attacked her, and her dog Charlie, a 25 to 30 lbs. terrier mix.  She's suing for $765, for vet bills.  Defendant says he was going to pay the vet bills, but only if plaintiff didn't make a report to the police or animal control.   Plaintiff called in a report about the attack, and defendant received a citation.    Defendant claims plaintiff telling the police and animal control about the attack ruined his reputation in the community, so he's not paying.   

Plaintiff was walking with her 2-year-old, and fiance, at the time of the attack.   The fiance and baby escaped.  The plaintiff was walking Charlie in the townhouse complex, and several people were standing with the unleashed Pit Bulls, and charged her.   The HOA president was one of the people standing around talking, and she told plaintiff that this wasn't the first time the Pits were off-leash, wandering at large. 

The two Pits attacked Charlie, plaintiff climbed on a car hood.  Fiance put the toddler into the back seat of the Jeep, to escape the attack.  Plaintiff says the Pits never barked or anything, and grabbed Charlie.  Charlie was on a leash the entire time.   A neighbor came to help and hit the Pits with sticks to drive it off. 

Plaintiff's fiance, Johnny Turnipseed, testifies.  He put the baby in the Jeep's back seat, then he went to get the dogs off of Charlie, and the neighbor with sticks helped.   

Defendant claims he was working on his back fence, to keep the dogs contained.   Defendant claims he didn't know about the attack, and said the dogs dug under the fence.   Defendant says he was told the plaintiff fiance threatened the Pits with a gun, and the sound of chambering a round drove the dogs off (Bull Pucky).    Defendant found out what happened when four police officers showed up at his door that evening, and animal control came the next morning.    Defendant received several citations.  I'm hoping the HOA does something about the dogs.   

Photos of poor Charlie are awful.  

Plaintiff gets $756, for the vet bills, and the repair costs to the Jeep when plaintiff climbed on top of the hood.     Plaintiff gets the money, and defendant is still a fool.   (Levin is wrong, many places don't have leash laws, or animal control, and an attack or death of another animal isn't a crime). 

Edited January 25, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

"Hey, you guys! I'm tellin' you!"😏

It seems there is a mold or template for FB, CL, and Google contractors. They are programmed to take big deposits and never do the work. They are all ignorant, loud, lying, thick-headed boors filled with BS excuses, i.e. "My friend's son has leukemia and I'm all heart... humidity... I fell in a hole... dropped my phone in a paint bucket... my place got shagged... my truck broke", etc etc, plus of course the ever-popular "My grammy died/had a stroke/was dying and blah blah."

Okay, I admit when I saw the preview still of the first case I thought, "Why is the love child of Jackie Stallone and Mickey Rourke here?" I am not being unkind, but I was "basically" shocked.

Theodora's son came out with no less than 11 "basicallys", plus one-half of a basically, so 11 1/2, basically. Theodora wasn't wearing a bathrobe, was she?

We had death threats, illiterate texxas, murdered English, extreme hostility, psycho-calling and all sorts of hijinks over an exterior paint job. Maybe the painter def is like yesterday's plumber def and he "don't climb no ladders"?

How could he be too busy to do Mom and Son's paint job when according to him the humidity precludes painting from June until October? Puzzled, I am.

Judging by Theordora's summer residence, why couldn't she hire a real painter? Oh, right - think of all the money she saved by engaging this Google goon! Well, that was the plan anyway. A shame these plans so often blow up in the faces of naive, cheap idiots who place all their trust in the word of some hustling "louse" they've never met.  "Oh, look! Here's a contractor who says 'Need money bad'! For sure we'll get a good deal from him!"

Creepy moron non-painter says at the end about JM, "She should be taken off the bench." I don't know if she didn't hear that or just realized it was no use to return and rip the creep a new one. I was kind of hoping she would though.

In the judges' chitchat, JM laments being unable to charge rude assholes with contempt or throw them in the slammer.

Honestly, this is what I thought I saw;