The People's Court - General Discussion

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Still . . . not impressed with a grown woman who can't remember to go pick up her dry cleaning.

I am an innocent bystander here but I think DoctorK got it right - a scam to get fresh cash for new clothes.

I’m betting the fashionista read some nugget on the net as to how you can get a new wardrobe “for pennies”.   All sorts of scams floating about….how to get a “free” meal at a top-rated steakhouse, how to get “free” vouchers at grocery stores and how to get a “free” haircut.  All these involve speaking to the manager, stating over and over that you’re a loyal customer and most importantly that you will not leave without some form of restitution.  For those not loyal customers screeching that you’re going to drench the internet with bad reviews will also have the manager think twice about booting you out or calling the police.

Scammers adhere to the squeaky wheel adage.  And it seems to work most times but I am glad the cleaners guy stood his ground.

What he needs to do next time is pile all the abandoned clothes, pour kerosine on the pile, light a match and WHOOSH!!!!  All the while filming.  

And for someone who did not see yesterday’s episode I sure am wordy.  

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, AZChristian said:

And the "search" feature didn't work, so I couldn't find anything through that either.

The "Donate" link certainly works! It all may be totally above-board but the site is not impressive and that massive picture is a puzzler.

 

7 hours ago, DoctorK said:

but seemed to believe that "february" has a pair of W's in it and no R's,

We got a "Febawary" from the principal? I didn't notice, maybe because we hear it so often.

The very best example we saw here to explain illiterate high school graduates was summed up so perfectly by one litigant from years ago even I remember it.

"I'm a English teacher."

No more need be said. JM tactfully tried to correct her by asking, "You're an English teacher?" It did no good.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

"I'm a English teacher."

No more need be said. JM tactfully tried to correct her by asking, "You're an English teacher?" It did no good.

That AngelaHunter is a amazing example.

 

eta:  I was going to add a comma after AngelaHunter because otherwise it’s inferring that AngelaHunter is a amazing example as opposed to AngelaHunters example being amazing.

But I think it should stay as is in all its glory. Or is it in all it’s glory?
 

Edited February 11, 2022 by PsychoKlown

[DoctorK]

I missed today's first case but I am watching the second case, "nappy" (plaintiff's word not mine) extensions. The Cox guide says this is a new show but I know that this case has been on before. I clearly remember the plaintiff, the "international influencer" who travels the world and has been on the cover of USA today. Not only that, I clearly remember her face, makeup, hair, nails and obnoxious and dramatic presentation. Maybe it is a senior moment but I don't think so.

[CrazyInAlabama]

New? "Furious at a Friend"

Case 1-Plaintiff and defendants worked in a nightclub, and were dancers.   They moved in together, and plaintiff is suing defendant for $3,000 for defendant moving out early, and breaking the lease.  Plaintiff also claims defendant was a bad influence on plaintiff's young daughter, and brought udesirables over.  Defendant says plaintiff body shamed her online, and kicked her out, so she owes plaintiff nothing. 

Plaintiff rented a three bedroom house, one bedroom for herself, and one for the 5-year-old daughter, and the other bedroom for defendant.  Plot twist, plaintiff told defendant to move out, during Covid.    Plaintiff only had her own name on the lease.    When Covid hit, plaintiff claims since the club closed for a while, that landlord didn't charge them rent from March to May, then landlord wanted rent, or for tenants to leave. 

Defendant claims plaintiff picked the door lock on her room, just to snoop.   In July they had a big fight, defendant moved out, and had to get a police escort for her to get her stuff out. 

Defendant claims plaintiff thinks defendant told a secret about her. 

They still work at the same club, but can't work the same shifts. 

Plaintiff gets $1600 rent, and has two weeks to see the date on the police report, to decide if there's more rent due. 

Case 2-Plaintiff Shakima Smith bought natural hair extensions from defendant, and they look bad ( I can agree with how bad they look) plaintiff wants $1769.  Defendant says plaintiff owes her money for the extensions $600, and says plaintiff wore the extensions for two months.    Plaintiff is a travel influencer, has been on USA today (I guess the magazine?) has gone to 57 countries, blogging about being a solo female traveler (I agree with Dr. K, this is a rerun case). 

The hair was purchased for a meeting with a possible reality show producers.   Even though the hair was 'nappy', plaintiff had all four bundles installed, and the first install was in for months, and that's normal wear, and it's due for replacement anyway.   

Plaintiff used the hair the first time, and the second time, but still wants a full refund. Defendant says a few years ago, she fired plaintiff as a client, but took her back after a year or two.  

Unfortunately for plaintiff, there are posted blog posts showing her in the ocean, and pool with wet hair.   

Defendant (of Laila's Virgin Curl)does exchanges, but plaintiff was still wearing the hair.   And defendant says the hair plaintiff claims to have mailed to her never arrived. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.  Defendant $600 for the hair. 

Edited February 11, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

57 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 1-Plaintiff and defendants worked in a nightclub, and were dancers.

More sordid crap. "I have a child... I have a daughter...I have a young child", says the hard rode-looking plaintiff (whose eyebrows seem to have been drawn or tatted halfway up her forehead) who strips all night, screeches obscenities, and invites her druggy fellow stripper to come live with her and her five-year-old daughter. How could it go wrong? The dingbat wants only her name on the lease (because she has a young daughter) so if money is owed the landlord will go after only her.  Brilliant. She's a single mother, you know, and I guess she wanted a nice, wholesome environment for that poor child.  Sorry, but no SSM status for you. I have no idea how this mess turned out.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff Shakima Smith bought natural hair extensions from defendant

I got as far as the influencer stuff and 700$ for bags of hair (and for which the original owner of this hair, a poverty-stricken woman, was probably paid 10$) and couldn't take any more. Is it now mandatory to have someone else's hair "installed" on your dome in order to influence people? I can't keep up with all this and get too confused.

Not a fun day on TPC.

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

The Cox guide says this is a new show but I know that this case has been on before.

There have been so many, many wig/weave fights it's very difficult to keep them straight but for the few minutes I saw I do think it was new, not that it matters.

We did get "I'm tellin' you!" from Levin, so there's that. Yes, Droopy Dawg. I make sure to follow your advice at all times. Okay, maybe I don't emulate your texting and driving since I'm not that important but if I ever get to be an influencer I'll give it a try.

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

That AngelaHunter is a amazing example

An amazing example of WHAT? 😆

[Carolina Girl]

The worst thing for me in watching People’s Court right now is that the annoying Medicare ads are back.   There are Fourth Amendment violations at work here.  
 

[Guest]

On 2/13/2022 at 3:26 PM, Carolina Girl said:

The worst thing for me in watching People’s Court right now is that the annoying Medicare ads are back.   There are Fourth Amendment violations at work here.  
 

I want to scream and scream again.  Between Joe Namath, Jimmy Walker and all the (really) bad senior citizen actors I can’t reach for the remote fast enough.  I don’t care how much MUNEEEEE they give me I will not sit through one of the damn commercials to get the information to see “if my zip code with give me money back”. 

As if my nerves weren’t on edge enough with those commercials we get the esteemed judges talking about their lovely daughters.  Stop it.  Please.  No one cares about your sweet precious daughters and their love lives.  I am embarrassed for them because they don’t have the sense God gave a goose to be embarrassed with all the talk about their offspring.  

Then, as if these two things weren’t enough to get my gastric juices flowing Doug said the couple “left the courtroom”.  No Doug.  No.  They did not leave the courtroom.  Their living room is not a courtroom.  Stop it now.  

They left the room.

They left the show.

They turned off their camera.

They walked away from their camera.

They walked away from the screen.

All acceptable responses but to say “they left the courtroom” is not an acceptable comment unless they are actually in a real courtroom or the faux-particle board-painted marble stage you people call a courtroom.                   

And here I thought Doug was following me on Primetimer forums.  I’m as deluded as the judges with their talented daughters.

And AngelaHunter, in response to your question An amazing example of WHAT?  Everything AngelaHunter, everything.  You’re the cats!!!

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

"You Kicked Me Out of My Home!" (No it was landlady's home, not the tenants). New episode, same old landlord vs. tenant story. 

Case 1-Plaintiffs rented the front apartment from defendant, then she kicked them out, they received their security back, but want $7274 from defendant/landlord..  Defendant says she rented to plaintiffs for three years, and says they broke all of the rules, she booted them, and returned the security deposit, and she owes them nothing more.  Plaintiff wife says the apartment was a nightmare, yet they lived there for 3 years.    Tenants actually left earlier than the 60 days they were given in the notice to quit. 

Landlord says they broke all of the rules, including putting a satellite dish without permission on the roof.    Mr. Peoples says he has a rug in front of the front door, to show if anyone has been in or out while they were out, and the front door to the apartment was open.  PLaintiff claims he thought landlady broke in and left the door open to tenants' apartment Then, Mr. Peoples claims landlady screamed at him to step away from her.  Then, defendant called police about plaintiff. LandladAfter the sheriff's deputy visit, landlady said the incident on that particular day was the last straw. 

She says plaintiff husband accused her of going into their unit, and left the door open, even though she just got home from work after plaintiff husband showed up.   Landlady says she gave tenants a 60-day notice to leave, she says following the Fair Housing Act rules.   

On the video, the plaintiff husband is holding the wife back from confronting the defendant.  Plaintiffs left without 30 days notice to landlady, almost a month early, so landlady couldn't get a tenant for the 30 day period.  

Plaintiffs pay $1966 for damages and one month's rent.   Landlady is cackling after her win.   Plaintiffs shut off the feed.

Case 2-Plaintiffs went to high school with defendant, so they hired hired him to build two decks for them.  Plaintiff husband says the decks are unsafe, and awful.   PLaintiffs want $3,000 back from defendant, but he says they were happy with the decks, had parties on them, and then wanted their money back anyway.   All of the deck screws or nails have black gunk around them, I suspect it's a type of rust (a few houses ago they used drywall screws, not galvanized, to put up a fence and all of the screws left the same marks).  My guess is the nails weren't galvanized, but regular nails and they rusted. 

  $7350 was to total cost, and everything was paid in full.   Plaintiff wife claims a step was loose, and they found a bunch of other issues after they paid the defendant. 

Plaintiffs claims they need a cemented foundation under the deck, not a stake and 4/4 foundation.  

Judge Marilyn slams the work, and pulls out the old routine of her relatives working in construction.  Judge gives the plaintiffs $3,000 the small claims limit in their case.   

(A hint for opening jars, get an old fashioned "Church Key" metal can and bottle opener, and use the pointy end to pry up the lid edge until the lid seal pops.   You can't reseal it, but it's better than tossing everything away, and you can always put the remains in a plastic container or bag).     

 

Edited February 14, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

 Between Joe Namath, Jimmy Walker

"Hey, poster!" Let's have some empathy. Poor Joe and Jimmy look like extras on The Walking Dead now. Let them have their little gig here.

The rental case certainly had oodles of explicitives and rubbering. I don't think my house has any of this rubbering. I might look into that.

Anyway, the Peoples - yeah, I know. It sounds like I'm using the wrong word but their name is Peoples, therefore they are the Peoples. Sorry, I had 4 hours of sleep last night and I'm trippin'.

The def. landlady def gave them 60 day's notice to move out because she couldn't stand them anymore, which for some reason they say left them homeless. The Peoples think that entitles them to moving expenses, first/last/security on their new place plus lost wages. There is all kinds of nonsense and bad behavior leading up to this. Mr. Peoples opines that def "do have a problem with men", since she didn't want him close to her. She called the poe-leece. Mr. Peoples, did it every occur to you that maybe she has a problem with YOU? Have you looked in the mirror lately?

Mr. Peoples and landlord are outside screaming at each other. I guess the Mr. had a moment to call Mrs. Peoples at work and she comes racing home because hubby told her def didn't like the tone he was using with her and he needed backup, I guess. She is suing Def for missed work. That problem with men Def has, right?

We get a video and it's pretty rank. It seems when the Mrs. did come rushing home to to defend her hubby Mr.Peoples has to all but tackle his screeching wife to the ground to prevent her from attacking Def like a wild beast outside the home. "Let me go!" she howls as she writhes and stuggles. Klassy!! I'm sure the neighbours appreciated this trashy display.

The Def landlady says she tries to keep a professional demeanor so attempts not to be as "raw" as she really desires to be, even with her "smart mouth". She sticks to "explicitives" only. 

The Peoples love to toke up and according to def. left a ton of oily weed residue and dust on everything, and did a patch job on the holes in the walls that a child would be embarassed to have done.

The Peoples get zero and def., who did everything required of her as landlady, is awarded 1800$ (I think) which sends her into major triumphant cackling and a seated happy dance. The Peoples screech something or other. JM beats a hasty retreat.

Contractor who built two decks, very very poorly. Def is mighty arrogant even after the pics of his extremely shoddy, shitty work is shown. Uneven, rusting nails, boards not meeting and just a general crap job.  P texts him numerous times, inquiring if he will come back and take a look and asking when he can come. He's much too busy to do that, and then he stops answering the texts, figuring they'll shut up and go away. His biggest mistake is telling JM "You're a judge. You don't know anything about construction." That went over about as well as we thought it would.

Plaintiffs win, of course and get 3K back, which won't cover the cost of having def's crappy work ripped out and a new deck built. In the hall, Doug tries to shame the big-mouthed, obnoxious contractor about his terrible work but he doesn't care.

Levin says, "It's the case of 'What a Deck!!" This is the 2nd time you've used that, Shortass, and it's just as unfunny, stupid, and juvenile as it was the first time. "What a deck" (what a dick)- get it? Do you?  Levin, you're a 70 year old man, FFS. You really think this is something to giggle about? Fuck you.

CrazyInAlabama - it took me so long to type this, you posted as I was still typing! Therefore there are repetitions, although both of us using the word "cackling" is pretty good!

 

Edited February 14, 2022 by AngelaHunter

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiffs shut off the feed.

Thank you CRAZYINALABAMA, you get it.  It’s not a courtroom.  I’m a woman on the edge.  

16 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Judge Marilyn slams the work, and pulls out the old routine of her relatives working in construction.    

I’ve got a cousin Kate who lives in Colorado and is a dentist.  In spite of all this I am quite aware that I cannot advise anyone on any tooth/jaw issues.  Having a relative who is a dentist does not make me knowledgeable on the subject.  JM should read the same friggin’ memo.

Reading my posts I am highly aware how cranky I am today.  I threw out a whole jar of pickles because I couldn’t open the top.  I suppose when I calm down I need to go fish it out of the trash can.  And the fact that it’s not the magical trash can will make me cranky all over again.  

I need a vacation.

[AngelaHunter]

9 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

 I threw out a whole jar of pickles because I couldn’t open the top.

I feel that and I've nearly done it (I have a bottle of wine here that nothing short of a stick of dynamite will open), but you really need to fish them out of the trash. I got a nifty jar opener and it will save not only your writst but a bunch of frustration and the release of many raw explicitives.

I spent all day waiting for a delivery I was told would arrive between 8a.m. and 8p.m. All day I kept going to the windows like "Lassie Come Home" waiting and waiting. It arrived at 4:45. I'm a little on edge right now.

Just think about the way our litigants live their lives and the way you live yours and you will feel better, "I'm tellin' you!"

 

Edited February 14, 2022 by AngelaHunter

[CrazyInAlabama]

"You Ruined My Reputation"

Case 1-Plaintiff /carpentry company owner, suing defendant for $10k for defamation.    Defendant Robert Safari (I love that name) claims he post mean reviews on the internet because defendant says his 1978 sailboat repair by plaintiff's company was bad.   Defendant made a $1,000 deposit on the boat carpentry and repairs.  The boat sank twice, and because of the age, had water damage everywhere.   Defendant was supposed to pay plaintiff $8,000 for the repairs, and only paid $6,000, promised to pay the other $2,000 in two payments, but never did.    Both of the litigants are really enjoying their time on camera.  

Plaintiff claims defendant wanted him to join defendant's business.    Defendant wrote some nasty Yelp, and other reviews about plaintiff's business, and can't produce a police report, and Judge Marilyn say defendant is lying about the police report.  Defendant says he filed a police report, and his attorneys will be filing a federal lawsuit.  

Plaintiff told to return the stuff defendant gave him, plaintiff gets $2500 and defendant is ordered to take down the posts online.   

Case 2-Plaintiff landlady suing for $1550 for two months rent, from defendant/former tenant for leaving without notice.   Defendant claims landlady stole butter out of his refrigerator.    Then, sister of landlady moved in with her two cats, and put the litter box in defendant's man cave.  

Plaintiff originally leased to caretaker for defendant's grandmother, and when grandmother died, caretaker moved into the apartment, and defendant was also a platonic roommate with the caretaker.   Rent was $775 a month.  After caretaker moved on, plaintiff's sister and her cats moved in with a reduced rent by defendant.   Defendant came home right at the end of his lease, saw the cats, and decided to move out.    Cats nailed his mattress, some boxes were used as a litter box too.   So, defendant moved out.  

Plaintiff claims he left a rifle and a bunch of food garbage behind.  

Defendant will pick up the rifle.   Also, defendant's lease dates were wrong, so it was never an accurate contract.   Plaintiff doesn't get the two months rent, because she moved in the sister and the cats into defendant's rented space.  

Plaintiff gets no back rent.   Defendant gets nothing, but can pick up his rifle. 

 

[AngelaHunter]

14 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff told to return the stuff defendant gave him, plaintiff gets $2500 and defendant is ordered to take down the posts online. 

Thanks! This got butted into for me and I really wanted to know if P.  got money for defamation, which for once I thought was warranted since the Def was a lying, hustling, blustering, windbag chisler who blames his wife for his nonsense, since it seems he may have doing this job behind her back. I'm sure she hit the roof at him agreeing to pay so much money for the restoration of  a 44-year-old boat - 'Yacht" the def corrects - that may have spent as much time under water as it did on the surface. JM didn't appreciate his outright lies and libel.

15 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Both of the litigants are really enjoying their time on camera.  

Weren't they though? P just loved his spot in the limelight, so much so that he spent time preparing and probably rehearsing his spiel/monologue. To try to excuse his naivety for being so easily scammed by the blowhard def, he relates that he's so stupid he fell for the fake charm - comparable to that of  a "used-car salesman in a polyester shirt" - of the def. Gee, Ray. I'm surprised a businessman of your age and experience is so easily snowed and I wouldn't relate that with a big grin. Even I wouldn't fall for the sleazy used-car salesman bit, but you did.  He's lucky he still had the texts to prove def is a major liar. The whole case hinged on what Def agreed to pay, and he denies it all. P's texts prove he did just that and admits here he was just "putting off" the P.

"Well... okay, then," he says after JM nails him to the wall. Just shameless.

36 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Then, sister of landlady moved in with her two cats, and put the litter box in defendant's man cave.  

I saw none of this except the hallterview, and after reading that I'm left wondering what this Def was doing with a "man cave".

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Thanks! This got butted into for me and I really wanted to know if P.  got money for defamation, which for once I thought was warranted since the Def was a lying, hustling, blustering, windbag chisler who blames his wife for his nonsense, since it seems he may have doing this job behind her back. I'm sure she hit the roof at him agreeing to pay so much money for the restoration of  a 44-year-old boat - 'Yacht" the def corrects - that may have spent as much time under water as it did on the surface. JM didn't appreciate his outright lies and libel.

For some reason the bicker-backering between these two had me mesmerized. A case of major confusion, lying and certainly heavy doses of stupidity.  Win/win.  Extra points for trying to pass off a busted, rickety boat as a yacht.  

 

17 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

To try to excuse his naivety for being so easily scammed by the blowhard def, he relates that he's so stupid he fell for the fake charm - comparable to that of  a "used-car salesman in a polyester shirt" - of the def. 
 

And alligator shoes.  Remember he said alligator shoes. Which is confusing to me because alligator shoes are quite spendy.  I’m assuming he meant faux alligator shoes. Just like his faux yacht. 

And a small update on the pickles.  Just as I was fishing them out of the trash Sir Walter came into the kitchen. I said “don’t ask” and he said “I had no intention”.  I put them in the fridge and as of now, 20 some odd hours later, not a word has been spoken about the pickles. 
 

AngelaHunter I will need the name of your gadget or else they will remain unopened in my fridge for the rest of my (or the fridge’s) life.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The Man Cave was apparently the defendant's bedroom, and the litter box was placed under his bed.     Plaintiff/landlady moved her sister into the upstairs apartment without telling defendant, apparently the defendant wasn't staying in his room all of the time. 

To open the pickles, get an old fashioned Church Key, metal can and bottle opened, use the pointy end under the lid, until it pops.    You can't reseal it, so you have to put it in another container, or something.   

(Thanks for the information, I ordered a couple of the jar openers, Starfrit has a U.S. website too, but ships from Quebec.  Maybe I can open jars without ruining the lid after I get the opener). 

Edited February 17, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

For some reason the bicker-backering between these two had me mesmerized. A case of major confusion, lying and certainly heavy doses of stupidity.  Win/win.

True. All this utter nonsense, all in proper English did have me quite captivated as well.

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

I will need the name of your gadget or else they will remain unopened in my fridge for the rest of my (or the fridge’s) life.

Starfrit! I've always loved their products and this jar opener is no exception Note: I still bang the jar lid prior to using the opener. I swear these producers of stuff in jars don't want us to open them.

This gadget even worked on the wine cap.

 

 

[Guest]

The case of the Crowned Idiot plaintiff….

And for the record:  I mentioned that cheesy figurine of the three sisters when the esteemed judges moved into the fake law office setting. 

JM’s feigned surprise of someone noticing it was as fake as her hair color.  The figurine is positioned so that a  person wearing a blindfold could see it.

 

 

 

[DoctorK]

God, I hated the loud entitled old fart who parked on private property in a driveway (not in a parking space) and thought he was owed $10,000 for getting towed. He is a real asshole and is an embarrassment to us normal (at least relatively) old farts. His after interview was priceless and Doug really called him out on his idiocy. I would hate to have him as a neighbor. P.S. He really needs to see a barber, but has probably been banned by every barber in his community.

Edited February 17, 2022 by DoctorK

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Tow Tussle" rerun (at least they picked a fun rerun). 

Case 1-Plaintiff Old Fart parked in a private parking lot, walked to his dentist, and was shocked that car was towed before he came back.   He claims it was a shared lot, without restricted parking signs, next to the dentist office.     

Dentist office has parking around the corner, but Old Fart couldn't find it.    The first dentist he went into their office was the wrong dental office, and he walked a block away to the correct dental office. He's suing for $10k.Old Fart claims his actual damages were $19,000.  Mr. Vagts (aka, Old Fart) parked  facing the dental office, which is the west side of the parking lot, blocking the driveway in the NW corner of the store lot, and car was in the parking lot for about 2 hours. 

Defendant Ms. D says Old Fart not only parked in front of her business, but blocked the driveway in the corner of the parking lot.    This is the only time in over 40 years in business, defendant has had to tow a car.    Tow company in Orange County, requires waiting an hour before towing.   

Two or three hours later, long after the tow.     Old Fart comes back to the private parking lot, and is shocked his car is gone.   There is a tow away sign in the store window at defendant's business, on the north side of the parking lot.   Defendant needs to put signs at both entrances to the parking lot.  

Old Fart wants 3 times towing fee,  (Towing fee was $250).   Old Fart thinks he should get $1,000 for violation of the parking sign rule for having a window sign, but not one at each driveway, but that would go to the county or city, if they fined defendant.   Plaintiff thinks defendant spent two hours taping his vehicle, but they're security videos, and no human was sitting there taping.  There's more garbage from Old Fart about the towing company's actions.     Old Fart only admits to being gone from his car for two hours, but defendant says it was almost two hours before his car was towed, and it was at least two more hours before Old Fart came back.    He wants $5,000 for suborning perjury.   

Judge Marilyn goes off on Old Fart.   It was not even that he parking in the private lot, but didn't even park in a parking space.   Judge Marilyn pretty much tells Old Fart to park his car where the sun don't shine.    Judge Marilyn finds for the defendant, and Old Fart starts up again, and Doug tells Old Fart to stuff it.    

Case 2-  Plaintiff hired defendant, and paid him to work on her house, he never showed, and wants her $300 back.   Defendant says he spent three hours preping the work at plaintiff's house, she changed her mind, and wants her non-refundable deposit back.  Defendant is a Home Advisor member, and Judge Marilyn says defendant was trying to cheat Home Advisor out of their commission.   Defendant says the work was way more tasks than plaintiff told Home Advisor.   So, then plaintiff cancelled with Home Advisor, and then arranged with defendant to do the work.  

However, defendant says the $300 goes to Home Advisor, not to him, and HA refunded this to plaintiff already.    Defendant says plaintiff never contacted the electrician who had to do part of the job, so the job was cancelled.   Judge Marilyn thinks defendant is the liar, but I think the plaintiff is scamming everyone. 

Judge Marilyn gives plaintiff the $300 back, but that was refunded by Home Advisor already.  

 

Edited February 18, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[rcc]

Two terrible plaintiffs today. Neither one should have gotten a thing. First case didn't, second case did. 

[AngelaHunter]

Gee, Col. Sanders really turned into a major jerk, one in desperate need of some personal grooming. Despised that idiotic, pedantic Old Fart who figures he's owed 19,000$ because his car got towed.

JM: "So you just drove into a private lot, didn't even park in a parking space, blocked an exit, and just walked away and left your car there?"

OF: "Correct." 😄

Even though Def wasn't abiding by the sign rule, I was glad JM found a way to not refund a penny, let alone 10K, to evil Santa.

22 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Doug tells Old Fart to stuff it. 

He warned him against further "rambling". Go, Doug!

23 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

However, defendant says the $300 goes to Home Advisor, not to him, and HA refunded this to plaintiff already.

It's kind of neat when a scammer's scam backfires on them. P knew full well what she was doing when that oily, belligerent little slug told her to cancel her job with HA, (which included installing some "tiny little sockets")and they'd do it on the sly privately. She figured she'd save the 289$ and he'd give her a better price. The big, "Oh, really? I didn't know that was wrong!" whining from P didn't work. I'm sorry she got anything back, with her unclean hands. Oh, well. Def says he's just starting out his business. I'm sure much success is in his future.

BTW, it seems Home Advisor doesn't always "vet" their contractors as well as they should. I just saw a video of someone hired from HA who went to the client's house and went feral, smashing their property to bits, so long and hard he actually collapsed before he could finish the destruction. Apparently HA's careful background check missed that he was a felon who was on drugs. Oops.

It reminds me of yesterday's contractor, a Yogi with a foolish grin, hired to sand and refinish floors for P. The pics were awesome - stain splashed everywhere, massive swirl marks in the wood, and stain looking like it was put on with a mop flung in all directions. "It just needed a touch-up", he explains. "The wood is old."

I'm getting my basement bathroom remodeled. I went to CL, found someone who said he'd work cheaply, needs money "real bad" and requires only that I give him my HD card so he can buy a hammer and a tile cutter and that I have a spare bedroom so he can bunk here.. He has no vehicle of his own. Sounded good to me, so I said okay. He doesn't believe in receipts or contracts, but naturally I said. "I trust you!" Wish me luck!  I'll let you all know how it goes.

I admit I never noticed the statues representing JM's darling girls and looking like little angels.

 

 

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

 

 

 

 

😆😄🤣

Perfect!

[rcc]

4 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Gee, Col. Sanders really turned into a major jerk, one in desperate need of some personal grooming. Despised that idiotic, pedantic Old Fart who figures he's owed 19,000$ because his car got towed.

JM: "So you just drove into a private lot, didn't even park in a parking space, blocked an exit, and just walked away and left your car there?"

OF: "Correct." 😄

Even though Def wasn't abiding by the sign rule, I was glad JM found a way to not refund a penny, let alone 10K, to evil Santa.

He warned him against further "rambling". Go, Doug!

It's kind of neat when a scammer's scam backfires on them. P knew full well what she was doing when that oily, belligerent little slug told her to cancel her job with HA, (which included installing some "tiny little sockets")and they'd do it on the sly privately. She figured she'd save the 289$ and he'd give her a better price. The big, "Oh, really? I didn't know that was wrong!" whining from P didn't work. I'm sorry she got anything back, with her unclean hands. Oh, well. Def says he's just starting out his business. I'm sure much success is in his future.

BTW, it seems Home Advisor doesn't always "vet" their contractors as well as they should. I just saw a video of someone hired from HA who went to the client's house and went feral, smashing their property to bits, so long and hard he actually collapsed before he could finish the destruction. Apparently HA's careful background check missed that he was a felon who was on drugs. Oops.

It reminds me of yesterday's contractor, a Yogi with a foolish grin, hired to sand and refinish floors for P. The pics were awesome - stain splashed everywhere, massive swirl marks in the wood, and stain looking like it was put on with a mop flung in all directions. "It just needed a touch-up", he explains. "The wood is old."

I'm getting my basement bathroom remodeled. I went to CL, found someone who said he'd work cheaply, needs money "real bad" and requires only that I give him my HD card so he can buy a hammer and a tile cutter and that I have a spare bedroom so he can bunk here.. He has no vehicle of his own. Sounded good to me, so I said okay. He doesn't believe in receipts or contracts, but naturally I said. "I trust you!" Wish me luck!  I'll let you all know how it goes.

I admit I never noticed the statues representing JM's darling girls and looking like little angels.

 

 

😆😄🤣

Perfect!

I did notice the statues before. "Angels" indeed. Lol

[NYGirl]

I'm just here to say I love Judge John.  He makes me laugh on the daily.  He absolutely loved listing the things Judge Millian does to annoy him.  He was getting worked up.

He's just so cute!  I hope they never stop doing this

[Guest]

On 9/6/2021 at 10:23 PM, PsychoKlown said:

- And my final observation…maybe AngelaHunter heard me scream in anguish all the way North but did anyone else notice the 3 Sisters figurine in JM’s faux office?  Right over her right shoulder.  I saw what she did there.  Nothing got by me - except maybe the hamster.

September 6, 2021 I posted this gem. 
 

Very little gets by these eagle eyes…that is eagle eyes with reading glasses. 

[AngelaHunter]

10 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

September 6, 2021 I posted this gem. 
 

Very little gets by these eagle eyes…that is eagle eyes with reading glasses. 

So you did! I must have been in my usual fog to miss that. Or more likely I skipped the tete-a-tete session that day.

[Carolina Girl]

4 hours ago, rcc said:

Two terrible plaintiffs today. Neither one should have gotten a thing. First case didn't, second case did. 

I’m starting to think these cases should start to mirror REAL court.  If plaintiff wins, they get the judgment and both split the remainder. If plaintiff loses, defendant gets it all.  

[Carolina Girl]

Also, even if the signs were not posted, she had every right to tow a car that was not parked in an authorized stall and blocking the entrance to her business. 

[Carolina Girl]

My personal favorite was “Subornation of Perjury.”  Uh, who did she ask to lie under oath?        Oh and unless you make a formal discovery demand through a request for production, she doesn’t have to turn over squat to you.  This idiot kept reading procedures and fines that could be imposed by a governmental agency as damages payable to him.  

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

My personal favorite was “Subornation of Perjury.”  Uh, who did she ask to lie under oath?        Oh and unless you make a formal discovery demand through a request for production, she doesn’t have to turn over squat to you.  This idiot kept reading procedures and fines that could be imposed by a governmental agency as damages payable to him.  

The guy was a real jerk.  He is the type to eat at a diner, wipe up his plate with the last bite of toast, swig down his third (3) cup of coffee, then complain the food tasted “terrible” and would no longer be a valued customer in this establishment.

He’d then recite some nonsense that would sound like a legal complaint and demand that he not be given a check.  The harassed manager would let him go because he was making a scene in front of the customers.  

The Abominable Snowman has been doing this a good portion of his life and more than not gets away with it.  He never thought he’d be challenged by a smart, poised business woman who wasn’t going to let him get away with it.

You know he’s still talking about the injustices of TPC.  Surprised he didn’t say to Doug that he was going to take it to a “higher court”.  And kudos to my Doug.  He did a great job shutting that moron down.

Edited February 18, 2022 by PsychoKlown

[AZChristian]

Arnold "I PARK WHERE I WANT" Vagts seems to have been the former Chief Technology Officer at UC Irvine Medical Center.

I bet there are a lot of people who are glad he is retired.

 

[AngelaHunter]

12 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

I’m starting to think these cases should start to mirror REAL court.  If plaintiff wins, they get the judgment and both split the remainder. If plaintiff loses, defendant gets it all.  

I hate it when someone who stole or scammed money gets to keep it all - like the horrible floor contractor mentioned above - plus get at least a fee from the show, but if they thought they might walk away with nothing no one would agree to appear here. There are so many bottom-feeders who don't mind being shown up as amoral creeps, druggies, child abusers, and scammers if they can get a few dollars out of it.

 

4 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

My personal favorite was “Subornation of Perjury.”

Judging by his language I first thought he used to be an attorney of the kind typically seen here. but I guess he spent hours Googling or watching Perry Mason, researching and printing out his evidence and couldn't wait for his moment in the sun here, where he would emerge triumphant over def. I bet everyone within the sound of his yelling has heard his sad tale ad nauseum.

 

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

The Abominable Snowman

😆 Here I go again. That picture had me in tears last night. When I tried to wipe them away I sliced my skin open with my 3" green talons. Expect court papers soonest.

59 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I bet there are a lot of people who are glad he is retired.

They probably had a party. "Ding dong, the Old Fart's gone!"

[Carolina Girl]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

Arnold "I PARK WHERE I WANT" Vagts seems to have been the former Chief Technology Officer at UC Irvine Medical Center.

I bet there are a lot of people who are glad he is retired.

 

He was such an ignorant dipwad.  The only monies he could recover was double the tow fee.  Period.  Nothing more.  And in his case, whether the signs were posted or not did not matter.  Those signs are to advise people parking in slots that they must patronize the businesses.  No signs cover a tow from a car parked willy-nilly and blocking an entrance.  It was very telling that the business owner said that this was the first time in 20 years she had ever had to tow anyone.  This tells me that she is probably very tolerant even of people who might use her lot to go next door.  

BTW - how do you go to the WRONG dentist?  You have the address.  

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

BTW - how do you go to the WRONG dentist?  You have the address.  

Did you see his teeth?  I’m also going to go out on a limb and say his breath is far from minty fresh.

Methinks the whole dentist story was just that…a story.  

Edited February 18, 2022 by PsychoKlown

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

Did you see his teeth?  I’m also going to go out on a limb and say his breath is far from minty fresh.

Methinks the whole dentist story was just that…a story.  

I agree.  If he was going in for extensive dental work, why would he leave his car parked a block away?  I always want to park as close to the door as I can when I'm having dental work done!!!

[Carolina Girl]

3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

I agree.  If he was going in for extensive dental work, why would he leave his car parked a block away?  I always want to park as close to the door as I can when I'm having dental work done!!!

Would love to know what other businesses were in the vicinity.   Like a BAR perhaps?  And he didn't want any cops or bystanders seeing him leave the bar and get into his car.  If he walks away down the street, 

[rcc]

Loser litigants again today. I thought I was watching Maury Povich today. JM was not amused but the plaintiff's man thought it was funny. JM should not have given a thing. Make the big man accountable! Second case almost as bad. Left his junk and wants to be compensated and she threw it out.

[CrazyInAlabama]

New episode, "Posting a Video Without Permission"  

Case 1-Both litigants are dating someone named Mr. Rogers, and this led to plaintiff's claims that defendant posted naked pictures on the internet of plaintiff.     Coyote Rogers is the Love Muffin in question.    They both knew the other was dating this loser.    Plaintiff has two kids with Coyote.    Plaintiff if suing for her PS5 back from defendant's house, apparently Coyote took it there and left it.  Plaintiff claims defendant took naked photos from Coyote's of plaintiff and posted those too. Somehow plaintiff was naked, talking to defendant on the phone, and defendant took photos and spread them all over the internet.   

Plaintiff believes Love Muffin saying he's coming back, and his daliance with defendant is temporary.    Sorry, but when your love object gives your PS5 to someone, that's true love.   Plaintiff has Coyote at her place for the case.   By the way, defendant's hair looks like garbage.  

So, plaintiff keeps Coyote, and gets $2550.    

This is interesting, the Judges are discussing if they're ever scared in court, and Judge Marilyn says no.  She had Douglas the bailiff right next to her, and once when two litigants were fighting in the hall, he broke them up.    I'm sure Judge John had a bunch of security when he was in court too.    I'm still glad that litigants are on TVs, and not in the hall with Doug.  

Case 2-Plaintiff wants defendant to repay him for selling or giving away his welding tools.  Plaintiff is the father of two kids with defendant, and defendant says she got sick of him dumping his stuff on her property, he wouldn't pick it up, so she got rid of it.    They were in a relationship, but split up 40 years ago.  Defendant  claims plaintiff dumped stuff all over her property, on a trailer, in her garage (not locked), and other places, without her permission.   

Plaintiff claims defendant gave his expensive welding tools to her boyfriend. 

Hauling company letter says they left the big welding equipment behind, and defendant says the junk metal people hauled the welding and other metal stuff away.  

Plaintiff gets his money, but he's still a jerk.   

 

Edited February 18, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

34 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

-Both litigants are dating someone named Mr. Rogers

One had too much wig and the other was in need of some. I stuck with this for a brief time, until I heard about the much-in-demand stud,"Coyote" and the naked pics. The thought of those had me hitting the FF button immediately. Her pics "got leaked" all over the internet? Is she famous, like a Kardashian or something? Is there a huge audience waiting for naked pics of her or maybe some "leaked" video of her rutting with Coyote?  Coyote better watch it. Those two could take him apart without even raising a sweat.

How come MY naked pics never got leaked? Oh, right - I do not have, nor have I ever had naked pics or videos, even back in olden times when someone might have actually wanted to see them. So gross. This sordid, nasty, oversexed shit doesn't do it for me.

45 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

She had Douglas the bailiff right next to her, and once when two litigants were fighting in the hall, he broke them up.

I'm pretty sure she was referring to "Mr. Sexual Blue", entrepreneur of all things sexual. Enough with the sex!

So, zipping ahead, we get:

40 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

-Plaintiff wants defendant to repay him for selling or giving away his welding tools.

I have nothing to say about these two who played house 40 years ago, except that I'm sure Def gave Bill tools. CrazyInAlabama said it all very well.

To quote Doc Holliday: "Well, that was a bust."

[CrazyInAlabama]

New episode, "Furious Over a Fence"

Case 1-Plaintiff hired defendant to build a fence tall enough, and sturdy enough to keep out the wildlife and protect her dogs, in Washington state.    Plaintiff claims defendant never did the work, lied about why he didn't show one time, and wants her money back, $2500 for a 6 foot privacy fence on part, and chain link on part of it.  Plaintiff only paid $1700 to defendant.  

What is wrong with the plaintiff?  She seems totally out of it.     I don't see what losing her father, and moving several states away have to do with the case, except to get sympathy from the judge.   

 A fence will never protect her little dogs from hawks, and other predators, and how tall of a fence did she want?  The husband's Irish Wolfhound won't stay in a back yard with the fence she describes.  Deer and coyotes can jump very high.  You need a 7' fence to try to keep deer out, and 6' to keep coyotes out, and with a buried portion to keep digging coyotes under the fence. 

When defendant claimed to be in the hospital with an eye infection, plaintiff didn't believe him, and went looking for him at the hospital.   Plaintiff actually sent defendant a video from the hospital, and she claims he's not in the hospital.   So, plaintiff claims she thought she might have given him Covid, so she went to the hospital to see if he's there, and if he has Covid.   She claims she was an undercover police officer, and left after a beating, and so she decided to find out where defendant lived, and stalked him.   She actually went to his house too.   Plaintiff filed a police report about the tool, and chainsaw theft, but defendant says the police never contacted him.   

Plaintiff also accused fence builder of stealing her gardening tools.   I disagree with the judge, the 'did you see my missing tools' is accusing defendant of stealing them.   

Plaintiff claims fence posts weren't in a perfect line, but defendant says plaintiff told him to move the post locations, and he had to account for a 5 foot easement from the pavement edge too.    Plaintiff's photo of the installed metal fence posts look good to me.     Defendant came back to finish the job, and stopped coming back after the video, and stalking by plaintiff.   

Plaintiff gets $1700 back for the work, and $75 to remove the fence posts he did install.   However, the fence posts had to be removed for the front chain link, because she wanted privacy fence instead.    (My view, plaintiff doesn't even know what she wants, what she needs to have installed, and changed her mind about fences a lot, so I would have given back half, so $850, and that's it.   )

Case 2- Plaintiff bought a sleeper sofa, and says defendant's workers ( his company is called Fabio) owe him  $1,000+ for plaintiff's source to fix the hardwood floors.  Plaintiff wanted someone else to fix the floor and refused the defendant's offer.    

Plaintiff didn't even watch the delivery, and because it was tricky to get the sofe upstairs, and plaintiff didn't even see the workers place the sofa.   Then, he gave them a $100 tip, and inspected the sofa after.      Defendant says plaintiff's photos are zoomed, and they aren't scratches, just dents.      I find it hard to believe that a hardwood floor would dent like that from a sofa.   

I guess plaintiff doesn't put the light beige felt sliders on the bottom of the sofa feet?  (tip: always use the light beige felt pads, the dark brown I've run into can have dye leaking out of them, and mark surfaces.   I always use felt pads on the bottom surface, and on the back of book cases, anything that's going to hit the wall.  

Judge Marilyn has plaintiff show the scratches.    I don't see that the sofe did this, it looks like when he moved the desk around, that plaintiff did it.   

Defendant knows someone who can refinish the floor, but plaintiff turned it down, and defendant offered to pay someone else to fix the floor.   

Judge Marilyn made her mind up for the plaintiff before this case started.   After hearing the decision, the defendant stomps off camera without commenting to Doug.   Sore loser.  (I will not call it 'left the courtroom', because he was never in a courtroom)

Plaintiff gets $1,173   (I think plaintiff scratched the floors moving his furniture)

Edited February 22, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

15 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

What is wrong with the plaintiff?  She seems totally out of it. 

She did seem to be on something quite strong or was falling asleep. I am getting increasingly impatient with the way JM lets litigants ramble on and on with their damned life stories that have nothing to do with the cases. Her father died, so she lived in one place and had to move to be near her mother and brought two little dogs and the Irish Wolfhound was coming so she needed a tall fence in a hurry and blah blah BLAH! All she needed to say was she hired Def to build a fence. There. That's easier. But I guess many think mentioning a dead parent will get them a sympathy verdict.

JM finally realizes she can't get a straight answer from P, so moves on to Def.

Def said he had to go the hospital. Doesn't P know anything at all about contractors? I don't know if he told the truth, but it's just standard - "my truck broke down... I had an accident...there was a family emergency... one of "my guys" broke some equipment... I fell in a hole and couldn't get out" etc, which usually means they're doing another job elsewhere. I'm sure we've all been there. It's to be expected but P goes all P.I. on def, even to stalking him to his home.  She seems to think it was important for her to know where he lives, since he knows where SHE lives. what was she going to do once she had his address? Did she deserve all her money back? I don't know.

In the hall, she opines that D was trying to take advantage of two grief-stricken women.

Next two litigants couldn't shut up to save their lives. P also digresses on his excitement and happiness at getting his ITALIAN sofa but I do believe def caused those massive gouges in the floor. Quadrae (really??) says he didn't do it, but offered to pay for it and will get some some guy he knows to come fix it but won't pay for the "big expensive" company P wants to do the job. 

Really, if I had just spent 16K on getting my floors done and had a super-expensive ITALIAN leather sofa being wrestled up my stairs (neither will ever happen) I might take a few minutes from my Zoom call to watch what goes on.

Quadrae's argument is that he delivers very high-end furniture so how could he scratch a floor? Everyone talks and babbles at once, drowning out JM.

Levin's summary of this case? "You're a real woodpecker."

Is this really a 70-year-old man who was a lawyer once upon a time in the distant past? I bet when he meets up with his posse of TMZ juvenile nitwits he probably brags, "Did you hear what I said? Did you? I said "deck" when I meant "dick" and "grass" when I meant "ass" - get it? - and the woodpecker thing - how funny and clever was that??"

His little butt-kissers all crack up in hysterics. Levin take a suck of his giant sippy cup and gives a big jack o'lantern grin, pleased at the adulation from these pathetic wee dingbats.

[Guest]

Apparently the crazy furniture guy disagreed with JM’s decision to such an extent, he left the courtroom without speaking to Doug.

Note:  I am still adamant that living rooms, breakfast nooks and Hampton Inns do not constitute a courtroom but a co-worker gently suggested I let things go so as not to repeat my position over and over.  (Do I really do that?)

Anyway, I decided to start big and accept the statement so-and-so left the courtroom even though this duplicitous defendant was sitting in his garage.*

*I had to repeat it because I did not include garages in my original rant.  

Done.

Edited February 22, 2022 by PsychoKlown

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Rental Repair Riot" new-

Case 1-Plaintiff/landlord claims defendant was a nightmare tenant.    PLaintiff claims defendant and her kids were slobs, dragged the garbage bags to the dumpster, leaving 'garbage juice' the entire way to the dumpster, and many times they didn't make it intact.     Suing for $1,007, above security deposit, that landlord kept, for damages.   First incident was when defendant wanted to put a basketball goal on the common sidewalk, and plaintiff referred her to the lease prohibiting that.   Defendant wanted to store her kids bikes, and toys in the common hallway.   Plaintiff says he saw the defendant's nephew break down the front door to the apartment, many closet doors needed repair.   After three years, plaintiff wasn't going to renew defendant's lease, but she moved out on her own at the end of year three.  Plaintiff had a lease for 2020 through 2021, but defendant didn't sign and return it.  So, in effect defendant became a month-to-month tenant.

Plaintiff says defendant didn't clean carpets, sweep, and there was melted stuff in the carpet.  As usual, defendant claims the apartment was spic and span when she moved out.  When defendant moved out, she ripped the three wall mounted TVs out of the drywall, floors and carpet is nasty looking.   There are little black spots all over the carpet, Judge Marilyn says it looks like hair product from a hair service.   Defendant denies doing hair in the apartment, and says she has her own salon. 

Shanette Portis, defendant, apparently went to Bozo's House of Hair for her dye job, and hair styling.   

$510 for attorney fees are requested by plaintiff, for the professional tenant defendant threatening plaintiff with a lawsuit.  Attorney told plaintiff to evict defendant, through housing court, then get a rent and damage hearing after that. 

Judge Marilyn dismisses the eviction/attorney fees part of the case.   However, Plaintiff gets $497 additional over security deposit, and defendant's case dismissed. 

Case 2-Plaintiff hired defendant to replace 14 large window screens on her porch, and all 14 screens blew off the windows.  Plaintiff wants her $2,000 back.   Defendant wanted to replace the screens, and wants to replace them, but plaintiff won't let her come back.   Plaintiff says screens were never done correctly, were loose, and all fell out in a high wind.  

It cost plaintiff $776 to replace the screens, $300 for the bottom screens, so total of $1,076 for more replacements from another company, but plaintiff's daughter claims she paid a lot out of her pocket for the screen materials.    Plaintiff  is still suing for $2,000. 

Plaintiff gets $1156 for the replacement springs.  

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

"Rental Repair Riot" new-

Case 1-Plaintiff/landlord claims defendant was a nightmare tenant.    PLaintiff claims defendant and her kids were slobs, dragged the garbage bags to the dumpster, leaving 'garbage juice' the entire way to the dumpster, and many times they didn't make it intact.

“Garbage juice”.  I know what the plaintiff meant but it sounds like a drink kids would torment their parents to buy when visiting Chuck E. Cheese.

 

18 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff says defendant didn't clean carpets, sweep, and there was melted stuff in the carpet. 

Candle wax.  No question.

18 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

There are little black spots all over the carpet, Judge Marilyn says it looks like hair product from a hair service.   Defendant denies doing hair in the apartment, and says she has her own salon. 

Liar, liar orange pants on fire.

18 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Shanette Portis, defendant, apparently went to Bozo's House of Hair for her dye job, and hair styling.

Shanette said “Give me the Raggedy Ann with a touch of Ronald McDonald to really rock the look.”

18 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Case 2-Plaintiff hired defendant to replace 14 large window screens on her porch, and all 14 screens blew off the windows.  Plaintiff wants her $2,000 back.   Defendant wanted to replace the screens, and wants to replace them, but plaintiff won't let her come back.   Plaintiff says screens were never done correctly, were loose, and all fell out in a high wind.  

It cost plaintiff $776 to replace the screens, $300 for the bottom screens, so total of $1,076 for more replacements from another company, but plaintiff's daughter claims she paid a lot out of her pocket for the screen materials.    Plaintiff  is still suing for $2,000. 

Plaintiff gets $1156 for the replacement springs.  

Plaintiff was an attractive woman.  Why JM had the hutspah to ask her her age is beyond me.  Not appropriate.  Nope.  

With that being said I think she was going for the “greedy grab”.  

Extra for stress?  Gee lady, we all have stress.  No one’s giving me extra for it

 

[AngelaHunter]

23 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

-Plaintiff/landlord claims defendant was a nightmare tenant.

Gotta love all the tenants we see here who either trash a place themselves or let their kids behave like wild animals in the premises. However it must not have bothered def all that much since he kept renewing her lease. Filing for an eviction after a tenant moves out and then wanting lawyer fees? Sounds very wacky to me. As JM said, "Just change the lock if you're afraid she might move back in."  Again, I'm surprised that JM, with her contracting knowledge does not know you cannot touch up paint that is over three years old. I ask her to try it. I did and it failed miserably. You have to do the whole wall, but an apartment needs repainting anyway after 3 years.

As usual we get the tenant to Doug: "He's a money-hungry slumloard." Makes you wonder how she suffered and endured over three years there, although its sounds as though she and her progeny helped turn it into a slum.

Ninety-year-old lady has some good genes! I wouldn't mind living that long if I could be as on the ball as this plaintiff. It sounds as though def's contractors ripped her off just because they thought they could rip off an old lady. It was unusual for JM to accept some writing on a piece of paper as proof of cost but I guess she had her reasons.

6 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

a co-worker gently suggested I let things go so as not to repeat my position over and over.

Don't feel bad. I rant about the same things (horrific grammar, bad wigs, and desperate women) over and over.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, AngelaHunter said:

Don't feel bad. I rant about the same things (horrific grammar, bad wigs, and desperate women) over and over.

So true.  

If they’d just listen to us (and act accordingly) the first time we suggest improvements we wouldn’t have to repeat ourselves.

It’s clearly their fault. :)

[Bazinga]

14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

It was unusual for JM to accept some writing on a piece of paper as proof of cost but I guess she had her reasons.

JM subjected it to the old lady rules of evidence.  She was a 90 year old woman, Judge Milan was going to side with her and give her leeway.  We have seen in other cases that self-generated "bills" are not proof of payment.  Here, handwritten notes by the neighbor-friend of the plaintiff of what SHE, a non-party to this action, paid, not even the plaintiff paid, is glossed over and considered proof of payment by the PLAINTIFF.  In fact, JM gave credit for half of an amount that was just the plaintiff's neighbor-friend's estimate.    

In other cases, repair people are allowed the chance to fix their work, within a reasonable time period.  Here, since the homeowner was "uncomfortable" with the contractor, she did not have to allow the defendant the opportunity they wanted to complete the work.  Again, cute, feisty, old lady rules, IMO.   

Unusual that JM sided with the landlord over the tenant when it came to damages.  She usually nickels and dimes landlords and acts like all damages are trivial, repairs are nothing and the landlord is overreaching.

I find JM's use of the term mansplaining to shut down Monday's mover sexist.  The mover was giving his side of the story, as he is supposed to.  What did this defendant do that warranted that reprimand?  The defendant was not particularly loud, long-winded, rude or condescending to the judge.  He did not even over talk the judge as she was the one not allowing him to speak.  The judge just disagreed with his argument that the gouge in the floor was not caused by his moving the furniture (an opinion).  The defendant's real problem was his inability to articulate why it was not his doing given that he agreed to do the repair through his friend.  That's not mansplaining, that is just an inability to put forth a coherent defense.  The judge might think he is totally baseless in his argument, but a judge should not so openly hold his sex against him and say he is mansplaining, especially as she, the judge, the woman, has all the power in the relationship, not the male defendant.  She would not tolerate someone saying she was womansplaining. Why is mansplaining considered cute for a judge to say to a defendant?  Of course, a response would be, woman don't womansplain.  I just think it is sexist, wrong and rude on the judge's part.  The parking lot blowhard-legal scholar-jerk was a mansplainer, but a judge should not call someone that, IMO.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Bazinga
Added mansplaining comment

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Bazinga said:

I find JM's use of the term mansplaining to shut down Monday's mover sexist.  The mover was giving his side of the story, as he is supposed to.  What did this defendant do that warranted that reprimand?  The defendant was not particularly loud, long-winded, rude or condescending to the judge.  He did not even over talk the judge as she was the one not allowing him to speak.  The judge just disagreed with his argument that the gouge in the floor was not caused by his moving the furniture (an opinion).  The defendant's real problem was his inability to articulate why it was not his doing given that he agreed to do the repair through his friend.  That's not mansplaining, that is just an inability to put forth a coherent defense.  The judge might think he is totally baseless in his argument, but a judge should not so openly hold his sex against him and say he is mansplaining, especially as she, the judge, the woman, has all the power in the relationship, not the male defendant.  She would not tolerate someone saying she was womansplaining. Why is mansplaining considered cute for a judge to say to a defendant?  Of course, a response would be, woman don't womansplain.  I just think it is sexist, wrong and rude on the judge's part.  The parking lot blowhard-legal scholar-jerk was a mansplainer, but a judge should not call someone that, IMO.

I think she thinks it makes her look cool, hip and young.  

JM and I are not that far apart in age and I can remember when in high school my classmates thought they were so trendy to say they were a member of the National Organization of Women but of course they’d say NOW.  I thought they were a bit daft because they paid money for some flimsy card that wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on by God knows who.  And me being me would aggravate them by asking what the benefits to joining were simply because they had no answer 

I guess my point is that JM wants to appear hip and in charge and one of her method for that is to unreasonably attack males who she perceives are challenging that image she has of herself 

I’ll bet you a case of Hoop-Tea she has a NOW card somewhere in a keepsake box from her younger days.  Probably the same box that is housing JJ’s genitalia.

 

 

 

 

 

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, Bazinga said:

In other cases, repair people are allowed the chance to fix their work, within a reasonable time period.  Here, since the homeowner was "uncomfortable" with the contractor, she did not have to allow the defendant the opportunity they wanted to complete the work.  Again, cute, feisty, old lady rules, IMO.

True. I'm thinking of the kitchen counter installer who had no clue what he was doing while installing concrete counters, with pieces of concrete breaking and falling on the floor, and the whole thing with huge cracks in it. P finally had enough of his destruction and fired him. JM said she must let him try to fix the mess he made. I thought that was totally unreasonable as only a complete teardown and redo by a professional was the answer.

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

I’ll bet you a case of Hoop-Tea she has a NOW card somewhere in a keepsake box from her younger days.  Probably the same box that is housing JJ’s genitalia.

Oh, you know it. 😄 I've been thinking and saying that for some time now. He was the begetter of three perfect, beautiful, talented, loving, brilliant SJW daughters. His job is done so he can just keep his mouth shut and be ignored. He all but admitted this was so and that none of them pay him any mind.

[CrazyInAlabama]

New episode, "Car Wash Catastrophe  "

Case 1-Plaintiff Miss Dookie, (that's the perfect name for this case, because her case is a steaming pile of Dookie) is suing defendants over their car wash breaking her side view mirror.  Defendants claim car was old, no one else lost a mirror that day, and they wash thousands of cars a day, and not one loses their mirror.   Defendant wonders if mirror was only glued on.  Plaintiff wants $2,000 for the mirror damages.   Car is a 2014 model.   There is video of the mirror mauling, but it's on a video screen at the car wash.  

Defendant says the video of her own 2012 car going through the same car wash, and coming out just fine, and the other video of plaintiff isn't proof of anything.   Video of plaintiff's car shows mirror fine, then hanging by a wire.   I agree with the car wash defendant, the close up of the mirror base isn't a new break, it's quite old.    I think it was glued or taped on, and then plaintiff went to the car wash, to get a free mirror replacement.   Defendant brings up that plaintiff has had 10 damage claims on her insurance.    There is a long sign posted at the car wash on the vacuum station, and the entrance to the car wash, and one on the wall by the pay station, stating cars 7 years or older then the car wash isn't responsible for damage.    Plaintiff wants $300 for mirror, and pain and suffering $1700.     Judge Marilyn says they should have given the plaintiff $250 in free car washes.   Defendants did an insurance background on plaintff, and they found 10 car damage claims, 5 workers comp claims, and 1 disability claim by plaintiff.   

Sign at car wash about car age, covers the defendants, and plaintiff case is dismissed.  Plaintiff gets snotty with Doug, and says she'll never go back to the car wash, but in the defendants' place, I would ban her. 

(I bet defendants' insurance agent will tell them to ban plaintiff from their premises.   When my father worked for a grocery chain, they had customers they called "fallers", who would come in the store, and fake a fall in produce [that's why we have to stumble over the rubber mats in the produce section], and have video cameras in the entrances, to catch people 'falling' on wet days.  We were watching the local news one evening, and a news clip of a woman claiming she used eye drops, and it had some kind of acid in it.   Dad recognized her as a faller, and she had been banned from every grocery, and discount store in three states.    Yes, her claim was a phony.)

Case 2-Plaintiff /former tenant suing former landlord for $1,000 security deposit.    Landlord's adult children say plaintiff broke her lease, moved early, didn't pay the last month's rent in full, and they're not returning the security back.     Plaintiff says her roommate lost her job due to Covid, and to contact landlord.   Plaintiff decided to leave three months early, and claims landlord told her she could leave without penalty.  Lease says security will not be used for the last month's rent, but be saved for actual damages.   Plaintiff claims her half of the rent was $1100, and roommate moved out without paying the last month, so landlord kept roommate's $1100. 

Judge Marilyn pulls out the law in their state (NY)  that they have to send a letter within 14 days to plaintiff, outlining why they're keeping the security deposit, landlords lose $800 of the security.    They're only out half a month's rent, and the landlords kept the roommate's security for rent.  

Edited February 24, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama