The People's Court - General Discussion

[DoctorK]

3 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Today’s first case: 

On your first post with the picture, I had no idea what it was about. Then I saw the plaintiff, wow! I can't fault people for parts of their appearance they cannot control, but I believe choices they make are worthy of comment. What I couldn't figure out was what the heck did she do to her face to make it all shiny? Maybe a coat of petroleum jelly? How could anyone go on camera looking so bizarrely shiny.

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

On your first post with the picture, I had no idea what it was about. Then I saw the plaintiff, wow! I can't fault people for parts of their appearance they cannot control, but I believe choices they make are worthy of comment. What I couldn't figure out was what the heck did she do to her face to make it all shiny? Maybe a coat of petroleum jelly? How could anyone go on camera looking so bizarrely shiny.

My first thought was that she was involved with a flash fire and that’s why all the Vaseline.  I don’t know.  

Her son looked out-of-place too.  I immediately thought of V is for Vendetta.

February is around the corner - the producers are probably dipping their toes in trotting out the out-of-placers for sweeps month.  

[rcc]

I thought the plaintiff with the shiny face and hair looking wet had just gotten out of the shower and only had time to put her bathrobe on. Afterall she had to look clean to be on tv! Lol

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, rcc said:

just gotten out of the shower and only had time to put her bathrobe on

So it was a bathrobe? Well, so? Remember the litigant or maybe her witness who testified in her bed!? And another litigant who wore pyjamas during her case? Sadly, I never saw her but read about her here.

Speaking of weird: I saw this and wracked my brain trying to think of who or what he reminded me. This is the best I could do, but I'm sure there's another animated or  horror movie character that is more accurate:

 

[Guest]

12 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

So it was a bathrobe? Well, so? Remember the litigant or maybe her witness who testified in her bed!? And another litigant who wore pyjamas during her case? Sadly, I never saw her but read about her here.

Speaking of weird: I saw this and wracked my brain trying to think of who or what he reminded me. This is the best I could do, but I'm sure there's another animated or  horror movie character that is more accurate:

 

Nice teeth Harve.

Maybe next time you’re texting while driving (while preaching not to text and drive) you could give ClearChoice a call for full dental implants.

A jack-o-lantern has better teeth.  Sheesh!

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Stealing From an Ex"

Case 1-Bitter old goat plaintiff says defendant, his niece's ex-husband stole the $500 that plaintiff put in niece's account.  Plaintiff claims the defendant was supposed to give the $500 to the niece.  Defendant and niece/wife are filing for divorce now, so it was a joint marital account.   Niece/soon to be ex-wife, claims she took the $500 because she was entitled to it.  Defendant claims he only took his fair share. 

Defendant claims he only took the money out of the joint account, after plaintiff niece/ex took her money out of the account.  Apparently, defendant was the only one getting a paycheck.   Defendant's right, either it's his money, or joint money, but plaintiff and niece/ex want every penny.   Judge Marilyn says the envelope the 11 year old had for her mother was not for defendant to take.   However, I disagree with plaintiff giving the 11 year old the envelope, and telling her to guard it from her father.

Plaintiff gets $500. 

Case 2-Plaintiff is suing defendant for defendants Pit Bulls attacking and killing plaintiff's cat, after plaintiff moved into defendant's home with his cat.   Defendant claims she told plaintiff not to leave his cat out in the house, but he left the door open.  Plaintiff says defendant was drinking a lot, he told her not to come into his room, but she did anyway, her dogs came into the room right after defendant and kitty paid the ultimate price.

Defendant paid for one vet bill, but not the second bill.  However, this was the first attack on the cat, there was another attack on the poor cat, a month later, and it was fatal.  Second attack was blamed on plaintiff, and he does accept blame.   What kind of idiot takes the cat into a house with two Pits, and stays there after the first attack.    

Judge Marilyn is yelling at plaintiff, and he deserves it.   Defendant deserves blame for letting the cat in the house the first time, and after the attack.   

First bill was $2700, second bill was $637.   He's only suing for the remaining $1,087 from the first bill.   I can't tell you how much I loath both litigants, and I feel so sorry for the poor cat. 

 

[AngelaHunter]

3 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

-Bitter old goat plaintiff says defendant, his niece's ex-husband stole the $500 that plaintiff put in niece's account.

With dull-witted yahoo, Uncle Donnie, and the other two I thought I'd fallen into some time warp, spiralling back to the 1950's. Get married at 16, have a kid and wifey sees no need to get a job, ever, (even though it seems they live hand to mouth) since hubby will take care of her for the rest of her life.

Yeah, she says she has her own business cleaning houses. Seems more likely she cleans a couple houses a week for "pin money" as it was called in archaic times.

Uncle Donnie thinks his niece is a saint. He's an idiot who gives a little girl a bunch of money for Courtney, therefore setting the child against her father. Def sees the envelope just lying there in the middle of his car seat. He had no idea what it was or who it was for, even though it had Courtney's name on it, so he just quite naturally put it in his pocket.

Courtney can't find the bank statement she needs, but "take my word for it", it exists.

You better start cleaning more houses with that business of yours, Courtney.

JM gives def what seemed like an hour to vent at Uncle Donnie, who always deemed him "worthless." You better be prepared for giving Courtney more money-filled envelopes, Uncle!

I skipped the next case as soon as I saw  the silly-looking man-child and heard what it was about. If any other breed of dog had attacked the cats, it would merely be called "dog". But, ooh - scary "pits"! Try setting a cat down with a couple of huskies, or my former neighbour's Labrador, who would kill them in a second. I guarantee a cat wouldn't survive for a second attack with any of them. These are all animals, doing what animals do. The humans are always the idiots who cause all the trouble. My pit bull loved all cats and was submissive to them. All dogs are different.

[Carolina Girl]

On 1/24/2022 at 2:32 PM, DoctorK said:

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.

Loved how his story kept changing.   Claims he never went on the roof.  I agree.  I think he got the daughter’s boyfriend to do it.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today's new one "Loaning a Lover Money"  Case 1-plaintiff loaned money to defendant, the usual gift vs. loan arguments.   Too boring to listen to. 

Case 2-Another plaintiff who signs an ironclad, no refund contract, and Covid strikes.   We all know two things:

1. We'll hear about her daughter's graduation parties, and proms.

2. Defendant will lose in spite of his contract.

Case 3-PLaintiff claims someone at the mechanic's shop backed into his car, so plaintiff wants defendant to pay $6,000 to fix his 'classic' car (aka Hooptie 76 Buick Limited).     Employee backed into hooptie, and owner said they'll fix the body damage, and give him a loaner.  Plaintiff is blaming everything on the car that needs to be fixed should be on defendant's dime.  The mechanic's shop arranges for plaintiff car's body damages to be fixed.  However, plaintiff didn't like the loaner car.  

$1250 to plaintiff, not the $6,000 he wanted (state maximum), and plaintiff claims he paid $9,000 to fix his car.  

        

[AngelaHunter]

15 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 1-plaintiff loaned money to defendant, the usual gift vs. loan arguments.   Too boring to listen to. 

Yes, I thought the same -  just the usual stupid woman showering money on a leech she barely knows, but you missed the part where we heard plaintiff is a therapist. Dr. Bria seems to have some mental issues. She's desperate, naive, has zero self-esteem and is willing to try to buy the love of an amoral, grifting, lying slob after "dating" for a few weeks. I really hope her field is in aroma or message therapy. I would not want this woman guiding me with my life problems.

Me: "Oh, Doctor, I'm so lonely and depressed. I feel like I'm nothing without a man in my life! What should I do?"
Dr.Bria: "Have you heard about the FB dating app?"

She says Def Zantrez owes her 289.18$ and tries to sound so professional, telling JM,  "Over the course of the relationship (of 6 or so weeks) the defendant reported having multiple responsibilities which he verbalized subsequently impacted his finances...He verbalized paying me back once he started working which was substantiated by his allegedly being hired as a leasing agent...  " etc, until JM tells her to knock it off and talk like a regular person. The word "said" is perfectly acceptable although it seems to be falling into disuse, with "like" replacing it: "He was like, "No I can't!", and I was like, "Yes, you can!".

A leasing agent? Well, why not? From what we've seen of them on this show I think he'd fit right in.

Zantrez also verbalized to her he wanted her to go to Walmart with him and buy him a bunch of stuff for his new digs. Of course she agreed.

I guess "verbalized" does sound classier than "said", even if only verbalizing which cleaning products you wish your FB sucker to purchase at Walmart.

Def sits there like a bloated lump, probably not understanding any of that. Zantrez doesn't remember all this stuff or agreeing to pay her back. It was so long ago, like, three weeks! Maybe he was in Alaska. He's not sure.

People? Don't bother with banks, loans, cash advances, pawn shops, payday loans, title loans or all that other crap with the annoying, tedious paperwork. Just advertise on the FB Meatmarket, hook some fool, get as much money as you can then dump them the way this def dumped the ridiculous P right after he got everything paid. On to the next mark.

Plaintiff shows JM some of her loverboy's texts: "Get someone to send me 150$ or 200." And she does it. Reminds me of some of the Russian love scammers who tell me to send them 300$ and if I don't have it, borrow it from a friend or family member because she'll pay them back for sure. Plaintiff is a therapist!! She NEEDS a therapist, like, really badly. She gets 200$ - she has to eat the other 89.18$ - in return  for the privilege of displaying to the world and to everyone in her area wanting a therapist what a sad, sad mental state she's in.

Mr. Lamont takes his '76 Booick Limted when he goes to the def's shop to discuss rims. Def's employee is backing out another car and hits Lamont's ride, leaving a dent. Def immediately tells Lamont to bring the car back. He'll give him a loaner car and take care of the damage. (Someone backed into me, leaving a dent like that, in the same spot. It cost 1465$ to fix). Lamont wants 6,000$ and says it will actually cost 9K. His car is worth 2K. He says he was about to sell it, of course, and the buyer then refused it what with the way the Def trashed it.

He doesn't like the loaner car. It's not his style. He says his car is practically totalled by this dent - the door is out of kilter, the vinyl roof is cracked, the hood is wrecked, he wants a complete paint job, etc etc. Def says a lot of the damage on this 46-year-old car was pre-existing, which he could tell by the amount of rust around the various dings and scratches. 

I was wondering if the def was driving a tank in order to do all this damage, but find out it was merely a Jeep.

JM awards P 1250$ which I thought was very generous since he didn't get estimates from a body shop. It seems regular body shops are not anxious to give estimates or work on 46-year-old veehickles and he couldn't be bothered finding a shop that would.

In the hall, he informs Doug, about the def, "He has a Napolictin Bonaparte demeanor and a Jezabel spirit", whatever that means, and that he doesn't care about money. "I"m not pissed off. That's only material stuff." I dunno - 9K or even 6K sounds like it might be indeed about material stuff.

 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Yes, I thought the same -  just the usual stupid woman showering money on a leech she barely knows, but you missed the part where we heard plaintiff is a therapist. Dr. Bria seems to have some mental issues. She's desperate, naive, has zero self-esteem and is willing to try to buy the love of an amoral, grifting, lying slob after "dating" for a few weeks. I really hope her field is in aroma or message therapy. I would not want this woman guiding me with my life problems.

Therapist my fanny 

8 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Me: "Oh, Doctor, I'm so lonely and depressed. I feel like I'm nothing without a man in my life! What should I do?"
Dr.Bria: "Have you heard about the FB dating app?"

She says Def Zantrez owes her 289.18$ and tries to sound so professional, telling JM,  "Over the course of the relationship (of 6 or so weeks) the defendant reported having multiple responsibilities which he verbalized subsequently impacted his finances...He verbalized paying me back once he started working which was substantiated by his allegedly being hired as a leasing agent...  " etc, until JM tells her to knock it off and talk like a regular person. The word "said" is perfectly acceptable although it seems to be falling into disuse, with "like" replacing it: "He was like, "No I can't!", and I was like, "Yes, you can!".

Verbalize my fanny.

There is nothing quite amusing as watching a foolish person attempt to impress others with elaborate word choices.  

Probably no one else will say it but I will…straight up she is a dummy. In so many ways. 
 

8 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

A leasing agent? Well, why not? From what we've seen of them on this show I think he'd fit right in.

Zantrez also verbalized to her he wanted her to go to Walmart with him and buy him a bunch of stuff for his new digs. Of course she agreed.

I guess "verbalized" does sound classier than "said", even if only verbalizing which cleaning products you wish your FB sucker to purchase at Walmart.

What a catch he was stuffed into his Walmart boxed set of shirt, tie and sweater.  Any woman would be proud to buy him paper towels and toilet cleaner from Walmart.  What an honor!

8 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Def sits there like a bloated lump, probably not understanding any of that. Zantrez doesn't remember all this stuff or agreeing to pay her back. It was so long ago, like, three weeks! Maybe he was in Alaska. He's not sure.

People? Don't bother with banks, loans, cash advances, pawn shops, payday loans, title loans or all that other crap with the annoying, tedious paperwork. Just advertise on the FB Meatmarket, hook some fool, get as much money as you can then dump them the way this def dumped the ridiculous P right after he got everything paid. On to the next mark.

I did like how she berated him at the end.  Excuse me Minnie but you picked this jerk. I would also bet a Walmart gift card that she showed her goodies to him that night right after a swanky dinner at Long John Silvers. 

8 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Plaintiff shows JM some of her loverboy's texts: "Get someone to send me 150$ or 200." And she does it. Reminds me of some of the Russian love scammers who tell me to send them 300$ and if I don't have it, borrow it from a friend or family member because she'll pay them back for sure. Plaintiff is a therapist!! She NEEDS a therapist, like, really badly. She gets 200$ - she has to eat the other 89.18$ - in return  for the privilege of displaying to the world and to everyone in her area wanting a therapist what a sad, sad mental state she's in.

Indubitably.  Impressed?

8 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Mr. Lamont takes his '76 Booick Limted when he goes to the def's shop to discuss rims. Def's employee is backing out another car and hits Lamont's ride, leaving a dent. Def immediately tells Lamont to bring the car back. He'll give him a loaner car and take care of the damage. (Someone backed into me, leaving a dent like that, in the same spot. It cost 1465$ to fix). Lamont wants 6,000$ and says it will actually cost 9K. His car is worth 2K. He says he was about to sell it, of course, and the buyer then refused it what with the way the Def trashed it.

He doesn't like the loaner car. It's not his style. He says his car is practically totalled by this dent - the door is out of kilter, the vinyl roof is cracked, the hood is wrecked, he wants a complete paint job, etc etc. Def says a lot of the damage on this 46-year-old car was pre-existing, which he could tell by the amount of rust around the various dings and scratches. 

I was wondering if the def was driving a tank in order to do all this damage, but find out it was merely a Jeep.

JM awards P 1250$ which I thought was very generous since he didn't get estimates from a body shop. It seems regular body shops are not anxious to give estimates or work on 46-year-old veehickles and he couldn't be bothered finding a shop that would.

In the hall, he informs Doug, about the def, "He has a Napolictin Bonaparte demeanor and a Jezabel spirit", whatever that means, and that he doesn't care about money. "I"m not pissed off. That's only material stuff." I dunno - 9K or even 6K sounds like it might be indeed about material stuff.

Completely confused.  But considering the contestants I think that’s a good thing.

Also, I need to vent about a portion of the Newlywed Game.  Pet peeves. JM and JJ both cannot tolerate when people break the rules of the road. Black and white. Stickler for rules, etc., etc.

Question:

Was it not just a few weeks ago when JJ was boasting that he got his friend off for drinking and driving?  What about those rules JM?  

What liking I had for them…evaporated  

 

 

 

 

 

[AngelaHunter]

3 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

 Pet peeves. JM and JJ both cannot tolerate when people break the rules of the road. Black and white. Stickler for rules, etc., etc.

Question:

Was it not just a few weeks ago when JJ was boasting that he got his friend off for drinking and driving?  What about those rules JM?  

I watched only a minute or two of this exchange - enough to gather that breaking the rules of the road are only bad if they inconvenience YOU - but I was thinking the same thing. Rules are for other people, not you, your friends or your family and especially not for three beautiful, talented, perfect daughters. Okay, fixing parking tickets is one thing (even though I had to pay the two I got) but driving drunk, even if you aren't quite blotto, is another.

 

9 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

There is nothing quite amusing as watching a foolish person attempt to impress others with elaborate word choices.

You must admit that saying, e.g., "We engaged in a physical altercation and I was subsequently incarcerated even though I verbalized to the officer that I had done nothing wrong" does sound much better than, "I beat the shit out of her and got my ass thrown in the slammer even though I screamed at the cops I didn't do nothing." 

[Guest]

13 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

You must admit that saying, e.g., "We engaged in a physical altercation and I was subsequently incarcerated even though I verbalized to the officer that I had done nothing wrong" does sound much better than, "I beat the shit out of her and got my ass thrown in the slammer even though I screamed at the cops I didn't do nothing." 

You’re right.

And may I add that your unique gift of verbalization astounds me. 

[AZChristian]

14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Yes, I thought the same -  just the usual stupid woman showering money on a leech she barely knows, but you missed the part where we heard plaintiff is a therapist. Dr. Bria seems to have some mental issues. She's desperate, naive, has zero self-esteem and is willing to try to buy the love of an amoral, grifting, lying slob after "dating" for a few weeks. I really hope her field is in aroma or message therapy. I would not want this woman guiding me with my life problems.

I googled "Therapists named Bria."  If I found the right one, she has a Facebook page advertising her mental health practice.

She should have a marketing slogan of "Do as I say, not as I do."

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

If I found the right one, she has a Facebook page advertising her mental health practice.

Nice find!

Quote

"Ooops I did it again. Please join me and others for a discussion on love, relationships & dating. The focus of the discussion will be surrounding trauma in relationships & how to overcome the trauma to have better relationships in the future."

I'm pretty sure I can guess how she came up with this topic.

She needs to verbalize to another therapist why her own last (non)relationship with a petty Walmart con artist she desperately dredged up on FB and subsequently sponsored was traumatic.

15 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

I would also bet a Walmart gift card that she showed her goodies to him that night right after a swanky dinner at Long John Silvers. 

A dinner for which she paid, no doubt, after Zantraz allegedly verbalized his perpetual state of financial embarrassment*.

I wonder if any of the people at her seminar saw her on this episode.

* This case brought to mind a teacher I had back in the dark ages who informed us that we should not say "I'm broke". We should say "I'm financially embarrassed" as that is much more genteel.

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Leaving a Freind in Stitches", new.

Case 1-Plaintiff claims her years long friend, and former neighbor stole her sewing machine, and she wants $1,200.    Defendant says she used the machine once or twice over the years, but never had it in her house, and certainly doesn't have the machine.    Plaintiff claims she carried the machine over to defendant's house, and it's a 20 lb. or so machine.   

Then, suddenly defendant moved, and didn't tell the plaintiff, and still didn't return the sewing machine.   Defendant says she was never loaned a sewing machine, never used a machine in her house, just a time or two at the plaintiff's house.   Defendant claims she didn't say goodbye because while she was showing her house for sale, she overheard plaintiff and husband talking to friends that they were going to wait until defendant went broke, and would then buy her house for peanuts.   

Plaintiff denies ever saying she wanted to buy defendant's house, and they weren't interested in her house.   Defendant claims she has a $1,000 sewing machine of her own, right in the room with her, and says she never borrowed the sewing machine.  

Plaintiff receives $700 for the older machine.   However, there is no proof defendant ever borrowed the machine, or even needed to borrow it.   I think the plaintiff said what the defendant said she did about the buying defendant's former house, and lied about lending her the sewing machine.   

Case 2-Plaintiff  was walking his leashed dogs, when he passed defendant's house, and defendant's dog ran out her front door, and the Pit Bull ran out and bit him, so plaintiff had to take off from work.   Defendant claims her surveillance camera footage proves her dog wasn't out, and therefore, never bit the plaintiff.   

Plaintiff's dogs are two tiny furballs, one named Waffles.    Plaintiff saw the Pit coming at them, and he grabbed his two dogs up, and Pit went after his older dog, and that's when the Pit bit him.    The plaintiff's second dog pulled out of the collar, and he ran to catch him.    Pit Bull bit through the plaintiff's hand.   The doctor's report was submitted, and his attorney said plaintiff should go back to doctor again, but he didn't.    There is a deep puncture wound on the palm side of his middle finger.    

Defendant wasn't at home when this happened, but she claims when she got home door was closed, and dog was inside.    Then, she got a call from the police, and she called plaintiff, and denies her dog was out or bit him.    However, plaintiff has a cell phone picture of the front door of defendant's house wide open, with the dog inside.    Ring doorbell footage shows her daughter leaving the door wide open when the two kids went out for mom to drive them to school.     

The ring camera footage has a gap that conveniently avoids showing the attack time period.  

When plaintiff came back to take the photo of the open door, from the property line, he was carrying a baseball bat.   The police finally responded, saw the door open, and closed the door.    When defendant called the plaintiff, she denied the door was left open, claims she locked it (her daughter left it wide open, there's proof of that).  So, plaintiff talked to his attorney about this.   

Judge Marilyn is reducing the $5,000 ask by plaintiff to virtually nothing.    Plaintiff gets $500, and defendant gets off with nothing.   I hope animal control fined her.   

 

[rcc]

17 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

"Leaving a Freind in Stitches", new.

Case 1-Plaintiff claims her years long friend, and former neighbor stole her sewing machine, and she wants $1,200.    Defendant says she used the machine once or twice over the years, but never had it in her house, and certainly doesn't have the machine.    Plaintiff claims she carried the machine over to defendant's house, and it's a 20 lb. or so machine.   

Then, suddenly defendant moved, and didn't tell the plaintiff, and still didn't return the sewing machine.   Defendant says she was never loaned a sewing machine, never used a machine in her house, just a time or two at the plaintiff's house.   Defendant claims she didn't say goodbye because while she was showing her house for sale, she overheard plaintiff and husband talking to friends that they were going to wait until defendant went broke, and would then buy her house for peanuts.   

Plaintiff denies ever saying she wanted to buy defendant's house, and they weren't interested in her house.   Defendant claims she has a $1,000 sewing machine of her own, right in the room with her, and says she never borrowed the sewing machine.  

Plaintiff receives $700 for the older machine.   However, there is no proof defendant ever borrowed the machine, or even needed to borrow it.   I think the plaintiff said what the defendant said she did about the buying defendant's former house, and lied about lending her the sewing machine.   

Case 2-Plaintiff  was walking his leashed dogs, when he passed defendant's house, and defendant's dog ran out her front door, and the Pit Bull ran out and bit him, so plaintiff had to take off from work.   Defendant claims her surveillance camera footage proves her dog wasn't out, and therefore, never bit the plaintiff.   

Plaintiff's dogs are two tiny furballs, one named Waffles.    Plaintiff saw the Pit coming at them, and he grabbed his two dogs up, and Pit went after his older dog, and that's when the Pit bit him.    The plaintiff's second dog pulled out of the collar, and he ran to catch him.    Pit Bull bit through the plaintiff's hand.   The doctor's report was submitted, and his attorney said plaintiff should go back to doctor again, but he didn't.    There is a deep puncture wound on the palm side of his middle finger.    

Defendant wasn't at home when this happened, but she claims when she got home door was closed, and dog was inside.    Then, she got a call from the police, and she called plaintiff, and denies her dog was out or bit him.    However, plaintiff has a cell phone picture of the front door of defendant's house wide open, with the dog inside.    Ring doorbell footage shows her daughter leaving the door wide open when the two kids went out for mom to drive them to school.     

The ring camera footage has a gap that conveniently avoids showing the attack time period.  

When plaintiff came back to take the photo of the open door, from the property line, he was carrying a baseball bat.   The police finally responded, saw the door open, and closed the door.    When defendant called the plaintiff, she denied the door was left open, claims she locked it (her daughter left it wide open, there's proof of that).  So, plaintiff talked to his attorney about this.   

Judge Marilyn is reducing the $5,000 ask by plaintiff to virtually nothing.    Plaintiff gets $500, and defendant gets off with nothing.   I hope animal control fined her.   

 

I thought he should have gotten more than $500 but he should have had his paycheck stub to show JM. Defendent was a liar.

[AngelaHunter]

1 minute ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 1-Plaintiff claims her years long friend, and former neighbor stole her sewing machine, and she wants $1,200.

OMG. I've known people like Ms.Hoffman, plaintiff - people who are in love with the sound of their own voices and can turn a 5-minute story about a trip to the post office into an endless saga with their sidetracking, embellishments, meandering, and all that crap. SHUT UP.

"I took the machine and carried it down from the second floor. My husband was outside working on (something or other) when he saw me carrying this super-heavy machine which weighs at least TWENTY pounds through the door and down the steps - there are steps in my house and steps in her house around the back where I was taking it -  and he stopped what he was doing and he said to me, "Do you want me to carry that for you?" I declined, and struggled on my own with this enormous weight on me, just to bring it to my neighbour and I put it on her kitchen island and yadda yadda", all of which had nothing to do with her Tale of the Purloined Sewing Machine. SHUT UP.

I guess that was all to demonstrate what a nice, kind, self-sacrificing person she is and how she endured all these trials and tribulations to loan this old machine to her friend.

She's so hurt, so upset that there is now an empty space in her home and her heart formerly occupied by her 20-year-old sewing maching. She was very emotionally attached to it but her mental anguish over its loss could be healed with 1200 bucks. I hope nothing really bad ever happens to Ms. Hoffman. She'll fold like a cheap suit.

It seems the P and her hubby were trying to cash on someone's misfortune for personal gain (just like Levin does!) I believed Def when she said she overheard that conversation about buying her (def's) house at a depressed price when she could no longer maintain it and ended up in dire straits - no way could make that up -  but she's not too bright. "I never had her sewing machine but I will check my attic and see if it's there." If you never had it why would you think it's in your house?

JM's analogy was right on. If my friend sued me for not returning her bicycle, I would say, "What? I never borrowed it" and not, "I'll check my garage when I have time, in case it magically drove itself in there even though I don't have it and have never had it."

If Def hadn't been so dumb she would have won.

[DoctorK]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant claims her surveillance camera footage proves her dog wasn't out, and therefore, never bit the plaintiff. 

I think the defendant was a top to bottom liar. This claim turned out to be completely untrue, and I don't feel as generous as JM that it is just a coincidence that the two minutes of video that would have shown exactly what happened were missing from the defendant's evidence even though as the judge pointed out the defendant supplied a vast amount of (irrelevant) video footage.

 

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

When defendant called the plaintiff, she denied the door was left open, claims she locked it (her daughter left it wide open, there's proof of that).

Liar, liar pants on fire again.

 

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Judge Marilyn is reducing the $5,000 ask by plaintiff to virtually nothing.    Plaintiff gets $500,

While I understand how JM didn't see $5K of damages, she really should have added punitive damages based on the defendant lying about almost every aspect of the case.

[Blissfool]

On 1/28/2022 at 9:21 PM, DoctorK said:

While I understand how JM didn't see $5K of damages, she really should have added punitive damages based on the defendant lying about almost every aspect of the case.

It seemed like JM did not like the plaintiff. Her tone was off and she kept making condescending remarks. "You have to prove to me you couldn't work with this little cut on your hand." She also seemed to make fun that he went back with a bat. I wish he would have gotten more money.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today's new episode "Doggy Disaster".      I bet sweeps month for ratings starts today.

Case 1-Plaintiff (Ms. Carla of Siberian Husky Rescue of Tucson)paid for a neutering on a Siberian Husky for $420 to neuter defendant's dog. 

Defendant says her daughter brought the dog home, and dumped it on defendant, and she wanted to adopt the dog out, but it had to be neutered first.     Defendant says the plaintiff was paying to neuter the dog plaintiff was adopting.    Defendant says she came home to a strange dog in her yard, and the Husky had been left by her daughter, who went on vacation.  So, defendant wasn't going to keep the dog, so dog had to be neutered, and up to date on shots to be adopted out by the rescue.   So, defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $50 a paycheck until the $420 was paid off.    

The poor dog was being kept outside, in a kennel, in the yard in Tucson in July.  Defendant claims the kennel was under a tree, but in Tucson in July, that's not good enough.  Defendant says she only agreed to chip in $50 for the dog neutering, not pay the $420.  Plaintiff's text does say "chip in" not pay all of it.  

Defendant claims she found an adopted herself, and owes plaintiff nothing.  Plaintiff found an adopter named Linda, accidentally sent a text with the information to defendant, instead of Linda, and when defendant contacted the adopter, Linda, directly defendant gave Linda the dog, and refuses to pay plaintiff.   

  Plaintiff thinks defendant and daughter are lying about the dog.   Unfortunately, the text talking about the defendant and daughter being liars, is the one with the adopter's information that went to the defendant. 

The plaintiff says the adopter reports the dog wasn't house trained, or trained at all, is still causing issues in the adopter's home.    Plaintiff wants the neutering fee, medical bills, gas to and from Benson.  Plaintiff gets $ 170 plus court costs. 

Case 2-PLaintiff suing her 20 year old granddaughter for the  $1450 loan she made to the granddaughter, and defendant won't pay her back.   Defendant denies owing the money.  Granddaughter says it was a gift to help her pay the rent, and she owes grandmother nothing.   Grandmother claims granddaughter was scammed, and would loan her $3200 for 90 days, and repay her $400 a month, so she sent $1450 to the granddaughter, and another $600 from her account, and $2050 was the total.   

 Granddaughter says she used the money for her bills, and a phlebotomy class, and grandmother wanted her money now, not later.    Granddaughter paid a total of $600 back to plaintiff, and still owes $1450.    Granddaughter claims because grandmother didn't keep paying her granddaughter's rent, granddaughter doesn't want to repay her.   

Granddaughter sent grandmother a text saying she wasn't paying anything back to grandmother until she was totally out of debt.    $1450 to plaintiff.  (Granddaughter says her grandmother and mother are both angry with her, and she says she doesn't miss the grandmother at all). (I love how Doug says that the judgment will hang over the granddaughter, when we all know the show pays the judgments). 

Case 3-Plaintiff hired defendant for seven years to clean his house.   The last visit he claims the cleaner broke his glass shower door, and owes him  $1306.50.   Defendants claims door wasn't on track properly, and they had been warned about the shaky door, and it was broken and flimsy.   

Defendants deny they were ever told about the doors.  (They were very old doors, and he shouldn't get full price for them. )

$1306 to plaintiff.   

 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

I just skimmed the Case of the Gangster Granny and the Ungrateful Aspiring Phlebotomist.

JM wants to counsel them, but once she hears D say she doesn't miss her granny at all (or maybe until she needs more money) she gave up.

What I wanted to know was about this 3200$ scam. Did granddaughter send money to some American soldier in Iraq who found a trunk box loaded with cash he would share with her, to some engineer working in Nigeria who had to bribe his way out of the country in order to come to her, or to a FB Lothario? Come on, show - that was the only part I was interested in.

Did not like Mr. Kupferberg. I believe his shower doors were old and wobbly and I believe he called the cleaner "stupid" but well, it got broken while she was working there so the company has to pay or rather, the show does.

Not exactly riveting cases.

[Guest]

Don’t forget that Mr Kupferberg did not pay the cleaning service fee.

I wanted Doug to press the abusive jerk on that alone. 

[AngelaHunter]

11 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Don’t forget that Mr Kupferberg did not pay the cleaning service fee.

I wanted Doug to press the abusive jerk on that alone. 

Right! The ol' cheapskate didn't pay for the work that was done, probably for less than minimum wage. Jerk, indeed, who is probably gloating he's getting not only brand new doors but got a free cleaning. Woo hoo.

I don't know why JM didn't at least subtract the cost of the cleaning from the judgment.

[DoctorK]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Did not like Mr. Kupferberg. I believe his shower doors were old and wobbly and I believe he called the cleaner "stupid" but well, it got broken while she was working there so the company has to pay or rather, the show does.

I have installed a few of these shower doors over the years and if installed correctly, you can lift the doors and remove them (like patio doors) but if they are properly installed  leanng against them or pushing them while cleaning will not push them out of the track but if they were installed incorrectly this could happen. I think Mr. Kkupferg had a shoddy installation and saw a chance to get it replaced for free, and from listening to him I totally believe that he said the offensive things to the defendants.

Edited February 1, 2022 by DoctorK
spelling

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

I have installed a few of these shower doors over the years and if installed correctly, you can lift the doors and remove them (like patio doors) but if they are properly installed  leanng against them or pushing them while cleaning will not push them out of the track but if they were installed incorrectly this could happen. I think Mr. Kkupferg had a shoddy installation and saw a chance to get it replaced for free, and from listening to him I totally believe that he said the offensive things to the defendants.

I wonder whether they filed a claim with their homeowners insurance before suing someone who had apparently been doing a good job of cleaning their  house for 7 years.  

I assume the cleaning company didn't have liability insurance, otherwise their insurance would have paid their claim.

Edited February 1, 2022 by AZChristian

[AngelaHunter]

29 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I assume the cleaning company didn't have liability insurance, otherwise their insurance would have paid their claim.

And the Kupferbergs of the world know this and know they pay a cheaper price than they would for insured, registered and bonded cleaning company, i.e. "Merry Maids" or others.

Accidents happen. He should have taken the 400$ and shut his trap. Maybe he could have even had a couple of free cleanings, to boot. Good luck finding a new cleaning service with whom you feel so at ease you can lie in bed while they work. It's not easy to find people you can trust in your home without watching them like hawks. I hope he gets some hustler from CL and then he might have something to wail about and sue over.

[rcc]

20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Today's new episode "Doggy Disaster".      I bet sweeps month for ratings starts today.

Case 1-Plaintiff (Ms. Carla of Siberian Husky Rescue of Tucson)paid for a neutering on a Siberian Husky for $420 to neuter defendant's dog. 

Defendant says her daughter brought the dog home, and dumped it on defendant, and she wanted to adopt the dog out, but it had to be neutered first.     Defendant says the plaintiff was paying to neuter the dog plaintiff was adopting.    Defendant says she came home to a strange dog in her yard, and the Husky had been left by her daughter, who went on vacation.  So, defendant wasn't going to keep the dog, so dog had to be neutered, and up to date on shots to be adopted out by the rescue.   So, defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $50 a paycheck until the $420 was paid off.    

The poor dog was being kept outside, in a kennel, in the yard in Tucson in July.  Defendant claims the kennel was under a tree, but in Tucson in July, that's not good enough.  Defendant says she only agreed to chip in $50 for the dog neutering, not pay the $420.  Plaintiff's text does say "chip in" not pay all of it.  

Defendant claims she found an adopted herself, and owes plaintiff nothing.  Plaintiff found an adopter named Linda, accidentally sent a text with the information to defendant, instead of Linda, and when defendant contacted the adopter, Linda, directly defendant gave Linda the dog, and refuses to pay plaintiff.   

  Plaintiff thinks defendant and daughter are lying about the dog.   Unfortunately, the text talking about the defendant and daughter being liars, is the one with the adopter's information that went to the defendant. 

The plaintiff says the adopter reports the dog wasn't house trained, or trained at all, is still causing issues in the adopter's home.    Plaintiff wants the neutering fee, medical bills, gas to and from Benson.  Plaintiff gets $ 170 plus court costs. 

Case 2-PLaintiff suing her 20 year old granddaughter for the  $1450 loan she made to the granddaughter, and defendant won't pay her back.   Defendant denies owing the money.  Granddaughter says it was a gift to help her pay the rent, and she owes grandmother nothing.   Grandmother claims granddaughter was scammed, and would loan her $3200 for 90 days, and repay her $400 a month, so she sent $1450 to the granddaughter, and another $600 from her account, and $2050 was the total.   

 Granddaughter says she used the money for her bills, and a phlebotomy class, and grandmother wanted her money now, not later.    Granddaughter paid a total of $600 back to plaintiff, and still owes $1450.    Granddaughter claims because grandmother didn't keep paying her granddaughter's rent, granddaughter doesn't want to repay her.   

Granddaughter sent grandmother a text saying she wasn't paying anything back to grandmother until she was totally out of debt.    $1450 to plaintiff.  (Granddaughter says her grandmother and mother are both angry with her, and she says she doesn't miss the grandmother at all). (I love how Doug says that the judgment will hang over the granddaughter, when we all know the show pays the judgments). 

Case 3-Plaintiff hired defendant for seven years to clean his house.   The last visit he claims the cleaner broke his glass shower door, and owes him  $1306.50.   Defendants claims door wasn't on track properly, and they had been warned about the shaky door, and it was broken and flimsy.   

Defendants deny they were ever told about the doors.  (They were very old doors, and he shouldn't get full price for them. )

$1306 to plaintiff.   

 

 

 

Too much money given to arrogant plaintiff too cheap to properly fix shower door. Not good decision by JM. No payment for cleaning either.

14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

And the Kupferbergs of the world know this and know they pay a cheaper price than they would for insured, registered and bonded cleaning company, i.e. "Merry Maids" or others.

Accidents happen. He should have taken the 400$ and shut his trap. Maybe he could have even had a couple of free cleanings, to boot. Good luck finding a new cleaning service with whom you feel so at ease you can lie in bed while they work. It's not easy to find people you can trust in your home without watching them like hawks. I hope he gets some hustler from CL and then he might have something to wail about and sue over.

Yes karma is what he deserves.

[Bazinga]

On 1/31/2022 at 5:18 PM, AngelaHunter said:

but well, it got broken while she was working there so the company has to pay

Where did Kupferberg prove negligence on the part of the cleaner so that he could prevail?  The cleaner, while being yelled at for her stupidity, took the blame and her company is taking the blame, but what did she do wrong?  She was cleaning and it broke, so the defendants assume it is her fault and are taking the blame but that is not the standard.  Did she apply too much pressure in scrubbing?  Use a hammer to kill a spider?  Slam the door closed?  Essentially, Kupferberg has a theory that the "girl" must have done something wrong but he has no proof of this.  A plaintiff's "theory" of what must have happened is not proof and is usually rejected.  See: my old car broke down right after it left the defendant's possession, so it's the defendant's fault.  The plaintiff has the burden to prove the cleaner did something negligent but JM assumed some sort of negligence or jumped past negligence because the cleaner/the company were taking the blame only because they too assume it must be her fault it broke while she was cleaning.  Totally wrong, IMO. 

And, Kupferberg should not have gotten full replacement cost.  Yes, if not for the breaking of the door, he would not have needed a new door and hard to find a comparable used shower door, but that is always true when something is damaged-would not need replacement unless damaged-JM acted like this case was different.  Kupferberg did not deserve a new shower door.  At most, the plaintiff should have gotten a "rough justice" amount for defendant doing damage to something that is old - a lesser amount.  

Judge Judy seems to pre-decide cases before she even hears testimony.  Judge Milan seems to like certain parties and allow them to get away with things and dislike others and come down hard on them.  She was particularly hard on the recent plaintiff with the dog bite on his hand, while bizarrely going easy on that defendant who obviously left her door open and blindly acted like it was impossible and suspiciously provided all the video but the actual attack.  Should the plaintiff not have gotten something for pain and suffering, JM has given that before in dog bite cases, for the wound?  JM treated him like he was an overreaching jerk but the wound was most certainly in a painful place and he should have been compensated.  There are many other examples.  JM goes hard on some people and soft on others and sometimes there does not seem to be a reason for her treatments.    

Edited February 2, 2022 by Bazinga
Just more to say, as I was very annoyed by this decision.

[AngelaHunter]

4 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

but that is always true when something is damaged-would not need replacement unless damaged-JM acted like this case was different.  Kupferberg did not deserve a new bathroom door.

This is the risk each party takes in cases like this. I have a great handyman who has done a lot of work for me. If he injures himself working in my home or breaks something of mine we have to take care of our own injuries and damage. He won't sue me, nor I him. That's the deal. If you don't like it, get a company that carries liability insurance and pay more for the service, Kupferberg.

What if the cleaner had been really injured by the glass and the company sued him for having a potentially dangerous/rickety/whatever fixture? I bet we'd hear some squawking from him then.

I thought the 400$ offer was fair, since no one saw what happened. I bet he was lying when he said he asked, "Are you all right?" unless he added, "You idiot" on the end of it.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Stealing from a Customer" new. 

Case 1-Plaintiff took car to defendant's car wash/oil change shop, and plaintiff claims an employee at the car wash shop stole two money orders from plaintiff's car during an oil change. Defendant claims there is no proof that plaintiff bought $2,000 in money orders.   Plaintiff claims employee denied being in the car, and then defendant admits the employee was in the vehicle several times.     

The video shows the worker in the car three times, and the police arrested the worker, and defendant says he couldn't fire the employee.   Defendant claims he can't fire the now former employee, and pay the judgment without a court decision. 

Plaintiff wins.

Case 2-Plaintiff sells sneakers online, and sold a pair to the defendant, and defendant is posting online that plaintiff is selling fakes.   Plaintiff wants $5k for the defamation, and for the fake Jordan sneakers.    Defendant claims the model and year was misrepresented, the box isn't the right one, and he was ripped off for almost $400 by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff claims the Jordan's are a 1980's model, and exactly what he promised the defendant, and are legit.  Plaintiff claims the law is that if you use legit materials, then it's a real Jordan.  That is totally wrong.  The leather on the shoe isn't suede or leather, it's painted plastic.   

Defendant sent the shoes he claims are fake for the Judge to examine, and says he has two more pair at home that are real, but he's not sending them in to the show.   Smart of the defendant.   Plaintiff offered 2019 model shoes, and actually sold fake 1989 shoes, according to defendant.   Then, plaintiff claims he was sending 2012 models.   

Defendant says plaintiff wanted to send him 1/2 the refund on 1 November, and the second half on 1 December, so defendant offered to send plaintiff one shoe each time.  Even I can tell the shoes are fake.  

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

(From what I've read, a few people actually make a bundle buying, or acquiring (from inside sources, and sneaker brokers), and reselling limited edition sneakers.    There are actually ways to authenticate sneakers, and there are services that do the authentication, and guarantee items as genuine, for a fee.   The same authentication services exist for other designer, and limited edition items). 

 

Edited February 2, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

31 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

"Stealing from a Customer"

So much trouble for people who eschew banks and stick to untraceable means of transferring funds like cash/no receipts, money orders, Western Union, MoneyGram, etc.  I guess if Mr. Patel did use banks he might find himself paying more than 300$/month for child support.

Def made no sense in any way in spite of his reasonable, rational demeanor. Someone, somewhere told him that it seems you can't fire a liar working for you, and a victim can't sue for money stolen from him until and unless the thief is convicted before the grand jury or some such nonsense. That's the rumour, anyway.

No way of knowing if the money orders were for 150, 500 or 1500$, but whatever. He gets 1500.

"Judge Milian, it's a blessing to be on your show. God bless." and "By the grace of all gods it's a real Jordan." I'm just glad he didn't list all these gods.

More big-time shoe wheeler-dealers. JM gets instruction of the meaning of "First Sale Doctrine" and is told her bailiff probably knows all about these precious shoes. Just ask him! I have a feeling Douglas has better things on which to spend his money.  JM wants to know why no one might think SHE collects these shoes. Sure. Those texts were mildly amusing. What's With People Capitalizing The First Letter of Every Word In a Sentence, Anyway? I've seen this before. It's more trouble than not doing it.

[Guest]

For some reason the case of the Sneaky Sneaker Salesman made me edgy.  The plaintiff really danced around the truth and his stuttering, hemming and hawing was driving me crazy. 

You’re scammed a high school friend and got caught.  Return the defendants money and call it a day.

I am still perplexed with all the wheeling and dealing of sneakers. I mentioned before about the cleaning lady from work whose son lists this as an occupation. 

I know it’s a thing but to me sneakers are sneakers and have a shelf life.  They have to be moved or they literally rot.  Why pay thousands for something that will dry rot fairly soon?

And for the record Keds get you where you’re going too.  For a whole lot less. 

[patty1h]

When I was growing up in Brooklyn in the 70's, sneakers became a status symbol; you would be ragged on if you got cheap sneakers.  This started at about 5-6th grade when kids would start to judge others on their shoes.  It was mainly a male thing, but some girls got into it too.  It was all on the idea that your family was "poor" and you couldn't afford the good stuff and it didn't matter that we lived in a middle class area, went to Catholic school.   It was also a "thing" that if you did come out in new status sneakers, the other kids would stomp on them to mess them up.  It was all status and jealousy among schoolkids.  

Some of the males just never got out of the mindset - I guess its the same for women who must have a name brand status handbag... high priced sneakers/handbag equals money + clout + coolness.  I'm sure you've read news stories on guys who have been robbed of their sneakers off the street.  People are stupid.

Edited February 2, 2022 by patty1h

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, patty1h said:

It was all on the idea that your family was "poor" and you couldn't afford the good stuff and it didn't matter that we lived in a middle class area, went to Catholic school.

We had cheap running shoes and we were poor, but everyone else was too, so we didn't know we were poor and had no need of status symbols, thank all the gods! 😄

2 hours ago, patty1h said:

I'm sure you've read news stories on guys who have been robbed of their sneakers off the street.

Never mind robbed. The shoe connoiseurs are committing murder for them:

Quote

A 16-year-old boy in Mississippi has been accused of killing another teen, reportedly a friend, over a pair of Nike Jordan sneakers.

https://thegrio.com/2021/06/15/mississippi-teen-hanzy-arrested-killing-jordan-sneakers/

[AZChristian]

I'm 75 and have about 20 pairs of (Skechers) sneakers.  Just because my knees won't let me wear high-heeled shoes any more, doesn't mean I can't have shoes to match whatever sweatpants I'm wearing on a given day.  LOL.  But I wouldn't pay $390 for a pair of sneakers.

That plaintiff was genuinely stupid.  He quoted a law and interpreted it incorrectly.  He knew those weren't genuine Jordans; he just thought he could convince a judge that what he knew about the Law of First Sale was correct, not realizing that not everyone is as stupid as he is.  He should have gotten legal advice before selling someone a pair of counterfeit sneakers and then SUING them for $5,000 for defamation of character.  And Judge Milian . . . customs agents DO include searches for counterfeit designer goods as part of their job.  Watch "To Catch a Smuggler."  

[Guest]

Patty1h I enjoyed reading your post.

12 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

We had cheap running shoes and we were poor, but everyone else was too, so we didn't know we were poor and had no need of status symbols, thank all the gods! 😄

Never mind robbed. The shoe connoiseurs are committing murder for them:

https://thegrio.com/2021/06/15/mississippi-teen-hanzy-arrested-killing-jordan-sneakers/

I hear you AngelaHunter.  Same here.  

I babysat for months to pay for my first pair of Jordache jeans.  Then, after all that I didn’t wear them because none of my friends had them.  

One more addition to the conversation…I believe it is also high status to be have the means to wheel and deal sneakers.  My co-worker was quite proud that her son had two pairs of Yeezys (sp?) to negotiate with buyers.  She said they could fetch a few thousand if the right person was interested.

Anyway, bottom line for me was plaintiff was trying to pass-the-buck onto the defendant when the shoes he “ordered” weren’t what he ordered.  Defendant was too street-smart and knowledgeable about sneakers to take the bait.  Good for him.

I just wonder how the plaintiff’s sneaker selling business will continue when it was exposed he tried to scam a customer.

 

[rcc]

4 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Patty1h I enjoyed reading your post.

I hear you AngelaHunter.  Same here.  

I babysat for months to pay for my first pair of Jordache jeans.  Then, after all that I didn’t wear them because none of my friends had them.  

One more addition to the conversation…I believe it is also high status to be have the means to wheel and deal sneakers.  My co-worker was quite proud that her son had two pairs of Yeezys (sp?) to negotiate with buyers.  She said they could fetch a few thousand if the right person was interested.

Anyway, bottom line for me was plaintiff was trying to pass-the-buck onto the defendant when the shoes he “ordered” weren’t what he ordered.  Defendant was too street-smart and knowledgeable about sneakers to take the bait.  Good for him.

I just wonder how the plaintiff’s sneaker selling business will continue when it was exposed he tried to scam a customer.

 

Didn't the plaintiff tell Douglas he was getting out of the shoe business.

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, rcc said:

Didn't the plaintiff tell Douglas he was getting out of the shoe business.

Yes.  Good catch.

I remember hearing that now.  

But did the legal beagle wannabe have a choice?  His target customer base had proof that he scammed not only a paying customer but one that he’s known for years.

I’d bet cash that we see him again on another case.  Only it won’t involve counterfeit sneakers but a rusty hoopty missing the fuzzy dice.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

New episode, "Bitter Over a Dog Bite"

Plaintiff suing defendant for an attack on plaintiff's dog at the dog park.  $1089 in unpaid vet bills, defendant paid part of the bill, but this is the remainder of the bill.    Plaintiff witness was at the dog park this day, when defendant's dog tried to bite witness's dog.   Then, the plaintiff's dog walker came into the park (dog walker refuses to get involved or testify), and defendant's dog (being watched by a dog walker, who is testifying) went after plaintiff's dog.  The picture of the plaintiff's dog's injury is awful.   

The defendant's dog walker is testifying, but she's testifying that the defendant's dog went after several dogs that day, and then bit and chased the plaintiff's dog.   Dog walker claims the accused biter didn't bite anyone, but that dog bit Brooklyn (plaintiff's dog), and another dog.

Judge Marilyn should stop attacking the dog walker, the plaintiff witness already said the dog walker has developmental issues.    Then, plaintiff keeps interrupting, and when defendant claims plaintiff was harassing the dog walker, he butts in again.   Defendant's defense is pathetic.   

Everybody is being awful.    Plaintiff gets his vet bills, $1,089.

Case 2-Plaintiff suing for $3,000, for awning defendant ordered, and plaintiff installed.  Defendant claims awning is defective.   Plaintiff company name in "Dodo Craft" in honor of his grandmother.     Defendant is suing for cost of awning removal, and replacement by another company.    Defendant claims she never received any drawings, or renderings (not renditions like Judge M calls them).   Old aluminum awning was replaced with a sheet metal awning.   

Defendant paid nothing to the plaintiff, not even for labor.   Defendant wants awning removed, and replaced by another company.   Defendant claims the canopy isn't up to code, but plaintiff claims it is. 

Plaintiff gets nothing, and defendant gets $1,045 to pay for the structural report, and awning removal.   Defendant wasn't out a penny on the awning installation, because she never paid for it.  

Case 3-Plaintiff wants her rental car fees, and Uber, after her 'as is' car croaked.  However, defendant says there was a recall issued, and the engine was replaced free by the manufacturer.   Plaintiff never test drove the car, and still thinks 'as is' will get her a bonanza. 

No money for anyone. 

 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff suing for $3,000, for awning defendant ordered,

If I were trying to find a picture to represent the owner of a company called "Dodo", named after a beloved grammy, this wimpy, neck-bearded P. would be my first choice. I thought the judgment was fair, even though D didn't do anything to ensure she got what she wanted before work started. After removal of Dodo's crappy work that wasn't even up to code so was worth nothing, she then has to pay for a new awning. Aside from that, I thought the new house frontage looked great.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 3-Plaintiff wants her rental car fees, and Uber, after her 'as is' car croaked. 

Ms Goodwine (yeah I had some of that while watching this) wants Chauncee (I wrote "Chumlee" first!) to pay for a new engine on her 10-year-old car. No, of course she never test drove it or had it checked out before buying. Why would she do that? She never had the opportunity. Do you know how long a 15-minute test drive takes? She has three kids! Isn't that special? By an amazing stroke of luck Def finds out for her that Kia recalled those engines and she gets a brand-new one for free.

But that's not enough for Ms. Goodwine. She wants Chauncee to pay for all her Ubers and other miscellaneous expenses. By coincidence she's an Uber driver and couldn't make any money while her car was in the shop. Ah, these are the risks one takes when buying a decade-old car. She's a single mother! Yes, of course, you are, but since I doubt Chauncee is the begetter of any of your blessed events, tough luck for you. Ask your baby daddie(s) to kick in a few bucks.

Edited February 2, 2022 by AngelaHunter
Def? P? They're not the same?

[CrazyInAlabama]

(On this morning's rerun, of the woman who deposited the defendant's check in her account, to help defendant evade the benefits system, and defendant took the money out, Doug called the plaintiff stupid.   I love Doug, and I'm so glad he's not actually in the reach of the litigants.)

New episode "My Ex Destroyed My Stuff"

Case 1-Plaintiff claims defendant was let into his room at his parents house while he was gone, after they broke up, and claims defendant stole his power cord to his gaming system, broke his controller, ruined his iPod, and vandalized other things.   It was a PS5.  The litigants lived together for almost two years, and she's only 20 now..  

Maybe someone the plaintiff's age shouldn't be shacking up in his parents' home, with someone that young.   After plaintiff dumped defendant, and started dating her friend, and when she found out he was now dating her best friend, it all hit the fan.   That's when she came to his parents' home, and vandalized the electronic gear.   Defendant claims she paid two-timing plaintiff for the damages, and plaintiff is trying to rip her off.   She offered $350, or $845, but that wasn't enough to cover the damages.   The new girlfriend's father was making the payments for the PS5, and wanted $1,000 to pay for the damages to the machine he owned.     Plaintiff accepted the $350.      New girlfriend's father is the owner of the gaming system, and he wanted his $1,000 or he would do a police report.   

Sorry, but it's not right to penalize the plaintiff because he cheated on his teen girlfriend.  So for doing over $1,000 worth of damage, she gets away by paying $350.

Defendant wins.

Case 2-PLaintiffs rented a room at defendant/landlord's house, said environment was hostile and they want their $525 back.   Sorry, but the defendant's blue eye shadow is a crime against fashion.     The bizarre claims of the woman plaintiff are hysterically funny. 

When plaintiffs moved out, defendant kept the cleaning deposit, $250, because that's what her cleaning lady charges.     No one signed a contract.    (I want to know what that giant stack of appliance boxes is behind the defendant?).     

The landlady seems rather peculiar, but the plaintiffs don't seem that normal either.   Landlady claims plaintiff man ran two businesses out of the room in the house.   Plaintiff man blames everything on the other tenants.    

Plaintiff's get $420, and defendant keeps $100 for cleaning.   Why do landlords come on this show?

[DoctorK]

22 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(I want to know what that giant stack of appliance boxes is behind the defendant?). 

I suspect hoarding. To me she came across as a nut case.

[rcc]

Yes the landlord came off as a nutcase but he was very strange. First case with the cheating, comic book and game player took that $350 from defendent and the machine from the father. What an immature jerk.

[AngelaHunter]

16 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 1-Plaintiff claims defendant was let into his room at his parents house while he was gone, after they broke up, and claims defendant stole his power cord to his gaming system, broke his controller, ruined his iPod, and vandalized other things. 

I think they roomed together at his mommy's house, banging in his cozy little bedroom? Can't see this chubby-cheeky baby man-child living on his own, not when he has to send his aunty(?) and sister-in-law to shake down Alyssa for the money she owes him.

But such a prize is he, such a hot commodity, that his ex-girlfiiend Alyssa, goes simply mad when he abandons her for another and she trashes all his toys and comics.  Alyssa doesn't want to mention the name of the new flame of her former Adonis. JM says, "She ruined your life and you're protecting her?" WTF, JM?? Nineteen-year-old b/f and g/f break up and this is a life-ruining event? Are you kidding me? Why is she so sympathetic to Alyssa who, like uncounted others, had a hissy fit and vandalized property? Did one of her darling girls get dumped and cry all weekend?

That anyone's life could be ruined by the loss of that little roly-poly comic-loving, silly boy is mind-boggling and sad. I got dumped by a boyfriend when I was 21. I cried and mooned around, but I never went and broke his games or bent his comics... oh wait - he didn't have any games and comic books but I wouldn't have even if he had some. I didn't even smash his windshield or bleach his clothes. Get over it!! It's life! Unless you marry the first person you date and stay with them for life, you're going to experience breakups with at least one party unhappy.

Boy-child says his new squeeze's daddy bought him a game. Daddy must be trying to get rid of his daughter and sees games as a sort of modern day dowry?

 

25 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-PLaintiffs rented a room at defendant/landlord's house, said environment was hostile and they want their $525 back

This was so wild I don't where to start. Middleaged couple, Jan&Jen,  moves into a room in Baby Jane West's house.

Jen ate all the food in the house - every bit of it -  because her boyfriend, Jan, was starving her. Maybe he chained her or made her wear a muzzle? I dunno, but he gave her 2oz servings of pasta! Luckily, in spite of all the food being stolen, Jane seems not to have missed a meal.

Jen says Baby Jane had people crammed everywhere in this house. She thought one of them was a butler, but maybe not.

 There were people living in the basement and the garage! There were Mexicans living in the yard and Jane only fed them one bowl of food per day! Jane's poker-playing son was sacked out on the sofa. He's world-famous and world-renowned. JM asks for his name twice, but Jane refuses to answer and just keeps blabbing.

Jane says Jen is crazy (by the end of this case I'm thinking they are all crazy). She got kicked off FB for defending her whiteness, something of which Jane doesn't approve. 

Jen is an astrologer who claims she never stole 100$ from famous poker son, and both of them rant about son winning with Lucky 7 or Jacks or whatever. 

Jane explains that no, there were no written agreements for cleaning fees or lease. JM just doesn't understand that is never done in San Francisco, unlike hick towns like Tulsa or Nashville. No one signs anything in SAN FRANCISCO, EVER! It's traditional.

San Francisco is "costable", says Jane who goes on to tell JM how very educated she is .

Jen almost caused Jane's death by leaving a door open which leads to a very dangerous, treacherous staircase. It's pitch-black in that area. I guess no one uses lights in San Francisco either.

Jen admits she threw beer and water all over the floor of Jane's bedroom because she was very annoyed. In spite of the horrendous living conditions there Jen&Jan still had to be booted out.

Of course Jane took no pictures of all this damage done. She's above such things and pooh-poohs the idea. She just wants to get paid for a whole new floor. It's HARDWOOD! I spill all kinds of stuff on my hardwood floor all the time. I wipe it up.

400$ returned to nutty P's, Jan&Jen. Since they appeared to be testifying in different locations I assume the romance is kaput. I hope Jen gets enough to eat now without Jan rationing her.

Whacka-doodles, all of them.

 

 

39 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

I suspect hoarding. To me she came across as a nut case.

OH, the towering Mt. Everest of Home Shopping Channel stuff was so out there even I noticed it!

[rcc]

16 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I think they roomed together at his mommy's house, banging in his cozy little bedroom? Can't see this chubby-cheeky baby man-child living on his own, not when he has to send his aunty(?) and sister-in-law to shake down Alyssa for the money she owes him.

But such a prize is he, such a hot commodity, that his ex-girlfiiend Alyssa, goes simply mad when he abandons her for another and she trashes all his toys and comics.  Alyssa doesn't want to mention the name of the new flame of her former Adonis. JM says, "She ruined your life and you're protecting her?" WTF, JM?? Nineteen-year-old b/f and g/f break up and this is a life-ruining event? Are you kidding me? Why is she so sympathetic to Alyssa who, like uncounted others, had a hissy fit and vandalized property? Did one of her darling girls get dumped and cry all weekend?

That anyone's life could be ruined by the loss of that little roly-poly comic-loving, silly boy is mind-boggling and sad. I got dumped by a boyfriend when I was 21. I cried and mooned around, but I never went and broke his games or bent his comics... oh wait - he didn't have any games and comic books but I wouldn't have even if he had some. I didn't even smash his windshield or bleach his clothes. Get over it!! It's life! Unless you marry the first person you date and stay with them for life, you're going to experience breakups with at least one party unhappy.

Boy-child says his new squeeze's daddy bought him a game. Daddy must be trying to get rid of his daughter and sees games as a sort of modern day dowry?

 

This was so wild I don't where to start. Middleaged couple, Jan&Jen,  moves into a room in Baby Jane West's house.

Jen ate all the food in the house - every bit of it -  because her boyfriend, Jan, was starving her. Maybe he chained her or made her wear a muzzle? I dunno, but he gave her 2oz servings of pasta! Luckily, in spite of all the food being stolen, Jane seems not to have missed a meal.

Jen says Baby Jane had people crammed everywhere in this house. She thought one of them was a butler, but maybe not.

 There were people living in the basement and the garage! There were Mexicans living in the yard and Jane only fed them one bowl of food per day! Jane's poker-playing son was sacked out on the sofa. He's world-famous and world-renowned. JM asks for his name twice, but Jane refuses to answer and just keeps blabbing.

Jane says Jen is crazy (by the end of this case I'm thinking they are all crazy). She got kicked off FB for defending her whiteness, something of which Jane doesn't approve. 

Jen is an astrologer who claims she never stole 100$ from famous poker son, and both of them rant about son winning with Lucky 7 or Jacks or whatever. 

Jane explains that no, there were no written agreements for cleaning fees or lease. JM just doesn't understand that is never done in San Francisco, unlike hick towns like Tulsa or Nashville. No one signs anything in SAN FRANCISCO, EVER! It's traditional.

San Francisco is "costable", says Jane who goes on to tell JM how very educated she is .

Jen almost caused Jane's death by leaving a door open which leads to a very dangerous, treacherous staircase. It's pitch-black in that area. I guess no one uses lights in San Francisco either.

Jen admits she threw beer and water all over the floor of Jane's bedroom because she was very annoyed. In spite of the horrendous living conditions there Jen&Jan still had to be booted out.

Of course Jane took no pictures of all this damage done. She's above such things and pooh-poohs the idea. She just wants to get paid for a whole new floor. It's HARDWOOD! I spill all kinds of stuff on my hardwood floor all the time. I wipe it up.

400$ returned to nutty P's, Jan&Jen. Since they appeared to be testifying in different locations I assume the romance is kaput. I hope Jen gets enough to eat now without Jan rationing her.

Whacka-doodles, all of them.

 

 

OH, the towering Mt. Everest of Home Shopping Channel stuff was so out there even I noticed it!

I laughed so hard at your post tears came to my eyes! The best part of watching this show is reading the comments here. Don't ever stop!

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, rcc said:

I laughed so hard at your post tears came to my eyes! The best part of watching this show is reading the comments here. Don't ever stop!

I've always felt that way. I'm not sure if I would even watch if not for this forum. I really do sometimes laugh until I cry. It's all so absurd and I love absurdity!

My mouth is slightly throbbing from a dentist visit today but I forgot all about it when I saw the bizarre, contentious triangle of Jen - Jan - Jane. 😄 And I thought I was cracked.

[Carolina Girl]

20 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

JM just doesn't understand that is never done in San Francisco, unlike hick towns like Tulsa or Nashville. No one signs anything in SAN FRANCISCO, EVER! It's traditional.

Like hell it is.  Over a 20 year period, I rented seven different apartments in San Francisco and the leases I signed were detailed and specific.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Canceled Trip Tantrum"

Case 1-they were going on a trip together, then had a violent fight and trip was canceled.   Plaintiff wants money ($720) for his part of the trip money he lost.   Defendant claims plaintiff assaulted her, and each claims the other litigant bit them.    His airline ticket was $170, the rest of the money was for an Airbnb in Florida.  

Plaintiff financed everything, and defendant refused to pay him until after the trip, and plaintiff didn't want the defendant's 18-year-old sister going on the trip either.   Defendant claims police have photos of her mouth injuries, but couldn't release it without a subpoena (?).    

Plaintiff did get arrested, did a battery intervention program, and no charges, but agreed not to oppose the restraining order.  

Defendant never paid for the money for the trip she called off.  (What a sad, sordid case). 

Plaintiff case dismissed.  Defendant wants $1,000 for pain and suffering.  Defendant gets $500.   

Case 2-Plaintiffs claim they were hired to install security cameras at defendant's house, they installed the cameras, and were never paid.   Defendant claims plaintiffs screwed up the installation, and he had to hire someone else to do it.    Apparently there was a verbal contract with one plaintiff, but not a written estimate or contract.  Defendant claims he paid the plaintiffs, but plaintiffs say he never paid them.   Plaintiffs say the cameras work, defendant said they didn't.    I'm not happy with either side in this case, no contracts, nobody has anything in text, email, or any other proof. 

Nothing proves payments, charges for work, or anything else.    Judge Marilyn orders defendant to pay $1,000 to plaintiffs.  

 

[rcc]

36 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

"Canceled Trip Tantrum"

Case 1-they were going on a trip together, then had a violent fight and trip was canceled.   Plaintiff wants money ($720) for his part of the trip money he lost.   Defendant claims plaintiff assaulted her, and each claims the other litigant bit them.    His airline ticket was $170, the rest of the money was for an Airbnb in Florida.  

Plaintiff financed everything, and defendant refused to pay him until after the trip, and plaintiff didn't want the defendant's 18-year-old sister going on the trip either.   Defendant claims police have photos of her mouth injuries, but couldn't release it without a subpoena (?).    

Plaintiff did get arrested, did a battery intervention program, and no charges, but agreed not to oppose the restraining order.  

Defendant never paid for the money for the trip she called off.  (What a sad, sordid case). 

Plaintiff case dismissed.  Defendant wants $1,000 for pain and suffering.  Defendant gets $500.   

Case 2-Plaintiffs claim they were hired to install security cameras at defendant's house, they installed the cameras, and were never paid.   Defendant claims plaintiffs screwed up the installation, and he had to hire someone else to do it.    Apparently there was a verbal contract with one plaintiff, but not a written estimate or contract.  Defendant claims he paid the plaintiffs, but plaintiffs say he never paid them.   Plaintiffs say the cameras work, defendant said they didn't.    I'm not happy with either side in this case, no contracts, nobody has anything in text, email, or any other proof. 

Nothing proves payments, charges for work, or anything else.    Judge Marilyn orders defendant to pay $1,000 to plaintiffs.  

 

JM and Douglas were amused by the litigants in second case as they tried not to laugh. Lol