CrazyInAlabama April 29, 2022 Share April 29, 2022 (edited) New case, "Naughty Nephew" Case 1-Plaintiff stored a huge metal container (Conex Shipping Container purchased in 2009, dumped on her dad's property) with her concession supplies (flea market supplies) on her father's property, she says her nephew burned the container up, and she wants money for it. Defendant / nephew says the container has been on the land for years, and it's now his acre, he's asked her repeatedly to move it and she won't, and he only burned the grass around the container to see the property line. Grandfather of nephew, and plaintiff's father called plaintiff and told her to move the Conex, about 2017 (it's been there since 2009). However, plaintiff didn't move it, so nephew could move his double wide onto his grandfather's property. Months later, plaintiff visited the father, the Conex had been moved, and plaintiff claims her father said the Conex could stay there forever. Plaintiff is fighting with defendant's mother, her sister-in-law, over funds that SIL has POA for. Nephew had to get a land deed to put the mobile home on his grandfather's property, so he moved the Conex about 20 feet. Conex is now sitting on the nephew's property (used to be grandfather's property), and why didn't they drag the Conex from defendant's acre onto the grandfather's property? Judge Marilyn didn't even have a clue about the poor surveyors having to mark property lines in 6 ft. tall weeds. It wasn't someone's over grown lawn, but long neglected and it was obvious that plaintiff never touched her Conex full of trash. I find it scary that the plaintiff is taking care of someone who needs full time care, and a POA for her finances. The nephew burned the head high grass to get to the property line, and to be able to put his mobile home on the property he owns. (Note to those who are confused about the property transfer, many mobile home, or regular home builders will only build a house or install the mobile on property you own, and it's collateral for the house or mobile home. That has to be proven by survey for separating the acre for the nephew/grandson from the bigger property). Plaintiff claims the property is her late father's property, not her nephew's acre. Grandfather transferred the acre to nephew/grandson so he could have title to it, and put the double wide on it. There was an official survey, and pins were placed by the surveyors. I agree, nephew should have dragged the Conex to the grandfather's property, and not left it on any part of his property. Nephew says plaintiff (a nurse) is overcharging his grandmother financially for caring for her. There is a hysterical video of the plaintiff showing her a** (not mooning, acting ridiculous, flipping birds, threatening the SIL). I'm sure when the conex gets emptied out and moved by plaintiff's movers, that the rusty Conex falls apart when it's moved off grandson/nephew's land. Plaintiff wants her Conex repaired (it's been on the grandfather's property since 2009), and the container moved, repainted, and her flea market supplies replaced. Plaintiff paid someone $250 to move the Conex, but she's trespassing on nephew's property. Police already told plaintiff to go to civil court to bring movers on the property, but JM doesn't want to accept the police report, or anything else. Plaintiff is told to move the Conex off of her nephew's property, and get a civil standby from the sheriff. If Conex isn't moved in 14 days, then it will be considered abandoned. Plaintiff gets zero. I hope the SIL, and other relatives find someone else to care for the grandmother. The Judges are asked about JM's relationship with bailiff Doug, which is over 20 years. Case 2-Plaintiff rented an apartment from defendant/landlord, and he won't return her $650 security. Landlord says he had to replace her keys, and remove the sticky tiles she left behind. Photos on move out are awful, with lots of stuff piled up in the apartment. She had 90 days notice that landlord wasn't renewing the lease, and still left the place like a garbage dump. The peel-and-stick tiles were put on hardwood floors. The freezer compartment is full of stuff too, except plaintiff wanted defendant to keep her hamburger patties safe. The peel-and-stick didn't come off at all in the high traffic areas, the sticky glue didn't come off at all, and it will ruin the floor finish to remove it. Unfortunately, defendant didn't send the required notice to plaintiff of why he wasn't returning her $650 security deposit. Plaintiff gets $120. Edited April 30, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 29, 2022 Share April 29, 2022 11 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Case 1-Plaintiff stored a huge metal container I am frazzled after spending over 2 hrs in traffic today, so I think I missed something. What exactly was P's extreme attachment to this "Conex"(My CONEX My CONEX!) that she talks about as though it's some rare, desirable item? This huge, ugly, rusted metal eyesore seems to mean so much to her she wants the D to pay to have it painted as though its some sort of art installation? What treasures lie within it? Why is it a tragedy that the thing was dragged somewhere else? I couldn't understand any of this. I was surprised, as I usually am when I see someone the P's age who not only has both parents living, but is still depending on them in some way. The fact that she wants pay to take care of her own mother is not surprising. We've seen that before. Lovely family, though. JM's "Good LUCK!" was seething with disgust. Oh, Ruthanne, you little piggy. I was rather interested in this since I'm redoing a bathroom that had peel 'n stick tiles on the floor. The bathroom is 6'x10', so not big by any means. Taking up those tiles was way worse than the ceramic I removed in an upstairs bathroom. Ruthanne says it's so easy - they just lift off! - but even so she never bothers to try to remove them within the 90-day notice she had to get out. These tiles are beyond horrible to remove. It was only after I desperately Googled for help that I found a heat gun is recommended. Since I have none, I tried a hair dryer and a scraper. That got the tiles up much more easily, but as D said, the thick, super-sticky adhesive is pretty much there for life. I kept getting completely stuck in the glue as I worked around the bathroom. I had 3 layers of vinyl tiles to take up and it was the job from Hell. I can't believe Ruthanne thought it was okay to put those sticky tiles over someone else's hardwood floor. The nerve! Or maybe just stupidity and irresponsibility? She would have come back and removed them. Yeah, sure. As D said, the floor is still covered in glue. And then Ruthanne, who was unable to "grab" all her junk when she moved - even with 3 months' notice - left a ton of crap for Def to clean up and even sent him orders to NOT throw out the beef patties she left in the fridge. Where does this kind of gall and entitlement come from? We see it all the time but it never fails to amaze me. The worst part of this is that JM gave her back some of her deposit when she not only didn't deserve it but should have paid over and above that to undo the disgusting mess she left. Unfortunately the Def, as per usual with landlords here, knows nothing of the obligations of landlords so didn't send her an itemized list of why he was keeping the deposit. He's going to have to have those floors sanded and refinished and it's not going to be cheap. 7 Link to comment
rcc April 29, 2022 Share April 29, 2022 The first case was ridiculous fighting over a rusted old container. Plaintiff looked like a money hungry character. Second case plaintiff should not have received a dime of her security deposit. 5 Link to comment
Bookworm13 April 30, 2022 Share April 30, 2022 4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: New case, "Naughty Nephew" Case 1-Plaintiff stored a huge metal container (Conex Shipping Container purchased in 2009, dumped on her dad's property) with her concession supplies (flea market supplies) on her father's property, she says her nephew burned the container up, and she wants money for it. Defendant / nephew says the container has been on the land for years, and it's now his acre, he's asked her repeatedly to move it and she won't, and he only burned the grass around the container to see the property line. Grandfather of nephew, and plaintiff's father called plaintiff and told her to move the Conex, about 2017 (it's been there since 2009). However, plaintiff didn't move it, so nephew could move his double wide onto his grandfather's property. Months later, plaintiff visited the father, the Conex had been moved, and plaintiff claims her father said the Conex could stay there forever. Plaintiff is fighting with defendant's mother, her sister-in-law, over funds that SIL has POA for. Nephew had to get a land deed to put the mobile home on his grandfather's property, so he moved the Conex about 20 feet. Conex is now sitting on the nephew's property (used to be grandfather's property), and why didn't they drag the Conex from defendant's acre onto the grandfather's property? The nephew burned the head high grass to get to the property line, and to be able to put his mobile home on the property he owns. (Note to those who are confused about the property transfer, many mobile home, or regular home builders will only build a house or install the mobile on property you own, and it's collateral for the house or mobile home). Plaintiff claims the property is her late father's property, not her nephew's acre. Grandfather transferred the acre to nephew/grandson so he could have title to it, and put the double wide on it. There was an official survey, and pins were placed by the surveyors. I agree, nephew should have dragged the Conex to the grandfather's property, and not left it on any part of his property. Nephew says plaintiff (a nurse) is charging his grandmother's estate for caring for her. There is a hysterical video of the plaintiff showing her a** (not mooning, acting ridiculous, flipping birds, threatening the SIL). Plaintiff wants her Conex repaired (it's been on the grandfather's property since 2009), and the container moved, repainted, and her flea market supplies replaced. Plaintiff paid someone $250 to move the Conex, but she's trespassing on nephew's property. Police already told plaintiff to go to civil court to bring movers on the property, but JM doesn't want to accept the police report, or anything else. Plaintiff is told to move the Conex off of her nephew's property, and get a civil standby from the sheriff. If Conex isn't moved in 14 days, then it will be considered abandoned. Plaintiff gets zero. I hope the SIL, and other relatives find someone else to care for the grandmother. The Judges are asked about JM's relationship with bailiff Doug, which is over 20 years. Case 2-Plaintiff rented an apartment from defendant/landlord, and he won't return her $650 security. Landlord says he had to replace her keys, and remove the sticky tiles she left behind. Photos on move out are awful, with lots of stuff piled up in the apartment. She had 90 days notice that landlord wasn't renewing the lease, and still left the place like a garbage dump. The peel-and-stick tiles were put on hardwood floors. The freezer compartment is full of stuff too, except plaintiff wanted defendant to keep her hamburger patties safe. The peel-and-stick didn't come off at all in the high traffic areas, the sticky glue didn't come off at all, and it will ruin the floor finish to remove it. Unfortunately, defendant didn't send the required notice to plaintiff of why he wasn't returning her $650 security deposit. Plaintiff gets $120. Case 1 was sad, but I was cracking up at the video. After a certain age, acting like that becomes pathetic, not funny. Case 2 was just odd. First, those sticky tiles on the floor were hideous. Second, who leaves that much stuff in an apartment and thinks it’s ok? I guarantee if it had looked like that when she moved in, she’d have thrown a bitch fit. It looked like she was only given 3 days notice, not 3 months. 4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I am frazzled after spending over 2 hrs in traffic today, so I think I missed something. What exactly was P's extreme attachment to this "Conex"(My CONEX My CONEX!) that she talks about as though it's some rare, desirable item? It housed all her flea market goods. I came in late, so I’m unsure if it was things she wanted to sell or things she bought. If they had that much meaning to her, she should have considered paying for a storage unit somewhere instead of a big metal container that daddy lets her keep on the property for free or buy a house with property so she can keep her own crap. What happens when mom passes away? Does she think she’s getting the house so it can just stay put? I can’t imagine how much stress this family hostility is causing the P’s mom. Clearly she thinks the SIL is better equipped at handling her affairs which is why she was chosen as POA, but it still must be heartbreaking to know your two children are at odds with each other. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 30, 2022 Share April 30, 2022 7 minutes ago, Bookworm13 said: It housed all her flea market goods. I came in late, so I’m unsure if it was things she wanted to sell or things she bought. Really? I missed that part. 😄 Her flea market treasures may be a little worse for wear after she left them sitting there baking in that oversized dumpster for 13 years. Here's my take: She's a hoarder/packrat who crammed Mommy and Daddy's house with her junk (which I bet she calls collectables and antiques), they got sick of tripping over it, so they made her get the almighty Conex. JM never asks the things I really want to know. 11 minutes ago, Bookworm13 said: Clearly she thinks the SIL is better equipped at handling her affairs which is why she was chosen as POA No doubt Mom knew if the P was handling her affairs there would be an empty bank account and another packed CONEX or two on the property. 6 Link to comment
DoctorK May 2, 2022 Share May 2, 2022 Today's first case - blah, a defendant who can't do simple arithmetic and loses because of it. Second case - I enjoyed this one, it was like an old fashioned morality play. I hated the lying weaselly defendant who just lied through her teeth about everything in order to cheat the plaintiff mechanic out of pay for the work he did. I was really glad that JM looked carefully at the time line to determine if the statute of limitations had run out - nope, the thoroughly dishonest cheating defendant didn't get to squeak by on that basis. 7 Link to comment
rcc May 2, 2022 Share May 2, 2022 (edited) What a dumb first case today. Because of a picture! Had to add the entitled brat in the second case with no insurance apparently was not a good case either. What a waste of an episode. Edited May 2, 2022 by rcc 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 2, 2022 Share May 2, 2022 Why was JM so enamored of the nutty P, who seemed to think she was in some trashy reality show, in the ticket case? Her autobigraphical meanderings, (and whatnot) informational tidbits like the show was for old ladies so they didn't have to fear being mugged or shot (whatever and whatnot) "I'm so visual", and her weird paranoia (and whatnot) weren't captivating. Her friend took a pic of her ass and P threatened legal action.(!!) Maybe she was afraid of the pics being "leaked"? She has grandkids!! They can't see her in a bathing suit! OMG! Trust me - those kids are not interested in pics of Grandma's saggy buttocks. NO ONE is interested in them. And whatnot. I can't believe so much time was wasted on this crap. I bailed before it ended. And whatnot. I too kind of enjoyed the second case which had no mention of "ass" or sordid carrying on. Little Ms. Justis Little is a total snotty bitch from hell. Why should she pay the poor mechanic plantiff, who looked as though he hauled Grandad's best suit out of mothballs for this case and combed his hair with an eggbeater, for all the work he did on her car which ultimately got repossessed?, Well, as she said, "I surrendered the car". I doubt she had much choice. P is kind of a slow-thinker, who said he fixed the car for only 300$ down because "I trusted her", this person he'd never met. You are way too old to be so naive and stupid. She can't pay P and can't make her car payments because she made the wise choice to get knocked up twice in a row. You don't have to pay people if a blessed event is upcoming, do you? She took the insurance money she got for the car and used it for herself and then went and stole her car back from P without paying a cent. Her idiot cousin(?) who kept popping in like a Jack-in-the-box to add his 00.02 - 'It wasn't the middle of the night!" as though stealing the car without paying is okay if it's daylight - was not helpful. I'm not sure why Justis is so supercilious when she's being revealed as a scamming dingbat here. 1500-odd$ for P and bonus points to him for calling the single-car garage at his own home "My facility" even though it didn't work. 7 Link to comment
rcc May 2, 2022 Share May 2, 2022 9 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Why was JM so enamored of the nutty P, who seemed to think she was in some trashy reality show, in the ticket case? Her autobigraphical meanderings, (and whatnot) informational tidbits like the show was for old ladies so they didn't have to fear being mugged or shot (whatever and whatnot) "I'm so visual", and her weird paranoia (and whatnot) weren't captivating. Her friend took a pic of her ass and P threatened legal action.(!!) Maybe she was afraid of the pics being "leaked"? She has grandkids!! They can't see her in a bathing suit! OMG! Trust me - those kids are not interested in pics of Grandma's saggy buttocks. NO ONE is interested in them. And whatnot. I can't believe so much time was wasted on this crap. I bailed before it ended. And whatnot. I too kind of enjoyed the second case which had no mention of "ass" or sordid carrying on. Little Ms. Justis Little is a total snotty bitch from hell. Why should she pay the poor mechanic plantiff, who looked as though he hauled Grandad's best suit out of mothballs for this case and combed his hair with an eggbeater, for all the work he did on her car which ultimately got repossessed?, Well, as she said, "I surrendered the car". I doubt she had much choice. P is kind of a slow-thinker, who said he fixed the car for only 300$ down because "I trusted her", this person he'd never met. You are way too old to be so naive and stupid. She can't pay P and can't make her car payments because she made the wise choice to get knocked up twice in a row. You don't have to pay people if a blessed event is upcoming, do you? She took the insurance money she got for the car and used it for herself and then went and stole her car back from P without paying a cent. Her idiot cousin(?) who kept popping in like a Jack-in-the-box to add his 00.02 - 'It wasn't the middle of the night!" as though stealing the car without paying is okay if it's daylight - was not helpful. I'm not sure why Justis is so supercilious when she's being revealed as a scamming dingbat here. 1500-odd$ for P and bonus points to him for calling the single-car garage at his own home "My facility" even though it didn't work. You forgot the little con artist "studied the law." Yeah as in how to scam. Lol 5 1 Link to comment
DoctorK May 2, 2022 Share May 2, 2022 3 minutes ago, rcc said: You forgot the little con artist "studied the law. Yeah, she probably concentrated on "statute of limitations", I was relieved when JM shot that down, I was afraid the defendant was going to get away with it on that basis. 8 Link to comment
NYGirl May 3, 2022 Share May 3, 2022 The defendant in the mechanic case had a punchable bitch face. She really bugged me. She really had no defense but believed her own BS 8 Link to comment
AZChristian May 3, 2022 Share May 3, 2022 15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: (and whatnot) . . . (whatever and whatnot) . . . (and whatnot) . . . And whatnot . . . And whatnot. Oh, did she say "whatnot" a lot??? (Just kidding. LOL.) 4 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama May 3, 2022 Share May 3, 2022 (edited) Today's sweeps month extravaganza "Lackadaisical Landlord" Case 1-Plaintiff rented house from defendant, and claims because they never did a walk through with her, and she wants double her security back, $1450. Landlords say plaintiff's son committed suicide in the house, and it took a long time before they felt comfortable doing the walk through, and when they did the house was a flea infested mess. (Some people are very reluctant to even enter a house where someone died, let alone a suicide scene. I know this because when my lovely neighbor died, the police did break in through the back door, but they did repair the frame enough that the lock would hold, and a neighbor fixed the frame. Maybe the police are rougher on break ins where the litigants live, but I doubt it.) The son signed the lease renewal, but plaintiff only signed the original lease, but not the renewal. Son hung himself in the house. So, plaintiff didn't live there? The son's father didn't come to the funeral. Plaintiff's estranged husband came to help her. Understandably, the plaintiff wasn't going back in the house. Plaintiff lived a mile away from the house, and the only resident was the 19-year-old son. Landlords let plaintiff have a few days in the next month to move out without penalty. Plaintiff took photos of the house on move out. Plaintiff says landlords told her side door of house was kicked in, and the house was trashed. Defendants wanted to have a priest to bless the house, before the landlords would have a walk through. Defendants didn't go into the house until a month after the clean out. They waited until the priest could bless the house. There were extensive damages from a broken basement pipe. I want to know how someone who wasn't on the lease gets a security deposit back, after she didn't even live in the house. (I find it odd that the mother went into the house several times, but the landlords couldn't enter the house until after the priest blessed the house). Plaintiff gets $250 of her security back. But not double the security back. Case 2-Plaintiff says defendant/neighbor's son scratched her car with a rock, and she wants $200 to fix the car. Defendant says another friend of her son scratched the car, and she's not paying. Plaintiff says the defendant's son wrote his name in dust on the car, and scratched the car. The pictures of the car hood are horrible, it's full of deep scratches, and there are some on the fender. I'm guessing the next time something happens to plaintiff's car, that defendant will be moving out right after? $250 is only half of the deductible. Defendant paid $50 up front, and signed a note to pay plaintiff $200 more, but didn't. $200 to plaintiff. Edited May 3, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 5 Link to comment
rcc May 3, 2022 Share May 3, 2022 First case should never have gotten the security dep back. Second case with the sad sack face defendent had all kinds of excuses while plaintiff was very patient. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 3, 2022 Share May 3, 2022 49 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Case 1-Plaintiff rented house from defendant, and claims because they never did a walk through with her, and she wants double her security back, $1450. Gee, I really hated the defs, especially the grinning, smirking, asshole husband who seemed to find all this amusing. They couldn't possibly do a walk-through before their priest blessed the house, or exorcised evil spirits, or banished ghosts. No, they have no proof/bills/pics of all this damage. Take their word for it! They're very religious but kind of lacking in Christian charity as this type often is - and admit they told P not to bother steam cleaning the carpets since their daughter is moving in and demanded new flooring but now they want money for all the stuff they say is damaged after they left the house vacant for over a month. That fence installation? Wow, I do agree that needed to be paid for. What a mess. They must have found this fence builder on FB or CL. *Aside* My neighbours moved out of their large home and left it empty for at least a month. A bunch of neighbour teens broke in, had parties and seriously trashed the place which very well could have happened here, especially with the kicked-in door. At least there weren't any evil spirits lurking. At least, I don't think so. 1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Case 2-Plaintiff says defendant/neighbor's son scratched her car with a rock, and she wants $200 to fix the car. "I don't have no income." One of the many reasons litigants have for not paying what they owe. Your lying little offspring deliberately scratched the car all to hell. If a little girl scratched the car with fingernails, she must have talons to rival those of an eagle. Def admits she only gave the P a measly 50$ because the landlord threatened to throw her out if she didn't pay. Lucky all P is asking for is half the 500$ deductible and D. had no intention of paying the rest. Get a job. 6 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama May 4, 2022 Share May 4, 2022 (edited) I'm watching the morning rerun, and it's an episode I missed before "Cat Thief" There's a woman who imports cats from Egypt, not some rare breed, just ordinary stray cats. She puts them in foster homes, and finds homes for them, the adoption fee is $350 each. JM is amazed that anyone is importing street cats from Egypt, it's not as if you can't get a bunch of strays here. The foster refuses to pay, when she decided to keep two cats. She also couldn't find Niagara Falls on a map, and since it was further than defendant thought it was, she stayed in a hotel. She wants $200 more for the trip expenses. Plaintiff gets the adoption fees, defendant gets told to stuff her claim, and I still wonder why anyone would pay $350 for some imported stray cat. If anyone wants a stray cat, the subdivision over from me has tons running loose, I'll give you directions. The dog fight case is only amusing because the defendant's last name is Safari. I never heard that before. The dog fight happened with all of the dogs leashed, Plaintiff's dog decided to fight the defendant's Akita, and plaintiff's dog lost big time. Defendant says plaintiff's dog snatched the Akita's favorite stick, and the fight was on. The plaintiff's dog was on a retractable leash, but she denies that. My view is dogs being dogs no one will have to pay, and I was right. Edited May 4, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
Bookworm13 May 4, 2022 Share May 4, 2022 On 5/2/2022 at 5:57 PM, AngelaHunter said: Little Ms. Justis Little is a total snotty bitch from hell. Why should she pay the poor mechanic plantiff, who looked as though he hauled Grandad's best suit out of mothballs for this case and combed his hair with an eggbeater, for all the work he did on her car which ultimately got repossessed?, Well, as she said, "I surrendered the car". I doubt she had much choice. P is kind of a slow-thinker, who said he fixed the car for only 300$ down because "I trusted her", this person he'd never met. You are way too old to be so naive and stupid. I wanted to reach through my tv and slap her. Acting like a know-it-all, yet knew nothing. I muted her before the end, but I hope she isn’t actually practicing law anywhere. I’m currently watching today’s (May 4th) show and this second case is bizarre. From a neighborly dispute to P’s son murdering his roommates. Cooking lunch while watching, so I know I’ve probably missed details, but this’ll be an interesting one to rewatch later. 3 Link to comment
Mrs Shibbles May 4, 2022 Share May 4, 2022 Propublica article on plaintiff’s son in today’s last case: https://www.propublica.org/article/an-atomwaffen-member-sketched-a-map-to-take-the-neo-nazis-down-what-path-officials-took-is-a-mystery Another article from AP https://apnews.com/article/north-america-shootings-tampa-florida-ap-top-news-222eaf9f330e4cdf812634f0baf3d5ca 1 Link to comment
patty1h May 4, 2022 Share May 4, 2022 Phew! The plaintiff in today's case "Rotten Renters" was amped up and exhausting, talking really fast and extreme overuse of the word "basically". Sis needs to slow down and not rent to strangers. 4 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama May 4, 2022 Share May 4, 2022 (edited) You can tell it's sweeps month, because of the lurid cases. New "Rotten Renter" Case 1-Plaintiff rented room to defendant, wants $350 unpaid rent, and for a cheap wig. One day when plaintiff came home there were a bunch of cops responding to her address, because defendant went bonkers. Defendant wanted her property out of the house, so she called police to help her get her property back. Defendant says she should get $150 for items plaintiff didn't return to defendant, and that plaintiff is the nutty one. Plaintiff claims they had no problems, until defendant came to get her stuff after she moved out (defendant was only supposed to stay for three months, and didn't pay the last month). Plaintiff is the fastest talker I've had to suffer through in a long time, and defendant is almost as fast. Now, JM is talking very fast too. Defendant will get her jewelry box, and Bob Marley pictures, and other personal items back. Plaintiff gets her $300 for rent. Case 2-Plaintiff Druid Alan Arthurs (not kidding about that, I don't know if Druid is his real first name, or a religious title) claims he was wrongly evicted from the apartment he was renting, and wants $8,000 for his property, and the harassment. Defendant/landlady says he was harassing other tenants (actually the condo owners in the unit below his), and was Baker Act confined, and then arrested for the downstairs tenant stalking, cyberstalking, and terroristic threats. Defendant says plaintiff would get into fights with other tenants. Plaintiff wants $8,000. (This happened in Seminole County Florida, in a city called The Springs). Defendant blames everything on new owners of the unit below his, over water leaks from his apartment. Plaintiff claims downstairs unit owner husband came to his apartment about a noise complaint, and I think the tenant should have called the police instead of dealing with plaintiff. HOA sent a letter to plaintiff about complaints about his behavior. Then, one afternoon, plaintiff claims there were over a dozen Seminole County deputies at his address, and they came to Baker Act him (involuntary commitment because he's a danger to himself, and others, signed by a judge). Plaintiff claimed he was released, and here come 7 to 8 Seminole County deputies, and they arrested him for stalking, and cyber stalking, and the complainants were the tenants downstairs. Plaintiff says the downstairs unit owners claimed he was threatening to kill them. Plaintiff claims he's suing the defendant because she conspired with the tenants (condo owners) in the unit below him, to evict him on phony charges. Defendant says the first time she met the condo owners downstairs was the day he was arrested, and evicted. Defendant says she has many disgusting texts from the plaintiff. Plaintiff's son is in prison for murdering his two roommates (Devon Arthurs) [in the AP article above]. Plaintiff says he turned his son in to authorities. They belonged to Atomwaffen, a neo nazi group. He's in Chattahoochee state mental facility for the criminally insane, and was charged with the two murders, but was ruled not competent to stand trial, and was sent to a facility for the criminally insane, forever. The HOA did the eviction, and plaintiff was in jail for three months. HOA banned plaintiff from the property. Defendant witness says he went into the apartment at plaintiff's request, and picked up his speakers, and the legal documents, and says plaintiff told him to trash everything else. Plot twist, defendant's husband is an attorney. Security, and the police claims the downstairs condo owners were confronted by Arthurs on two days, and threatened them. The property manager also made similar allegations about plaintiff threatening to kill him. (I'm so glad that even with hunky Douglas next to her, that the plaintiff is not in the courtroom). Plaintiff loses his case, and gets nothing. Defendant's claim for rent for three months is mostly covered, plus she gets $750 over security and last months rent she already has. I feel so sorry for the landlady, her husband, and the downstairs neighbors he terrorized, and the property manager who was afraid of him also. You know he must have been really aggressive to have so many officers show up twice. Edited May 5, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 5, 2022 Share May 5, 2022 4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Case 1-Plaintiff rented room to defendant, wants $350 unpaid rent, and for a cheap wig. Just got around to the show and nearly turned it off. The usual trash - roommates, evictions, 30$ wig, motormouthing, foul language, vile texts, Cashapp, possible ass-beating, cops called, etc. I was feeling sorry for JM who cannot FF this garbage the way I can. I did like the "Can you believe this shit?" side-eye Douglas was giving JM. Then I see Druid Alan Arthurs. I too wondered if his name is actually Druid, or does that mean he IS a druid? CrazyInAlabama outlines the insanity very well. The Druid obviously lives by the motto, "Just deny everything". Every single person was lying, just totally made up all these allegations about his wild and crazy behavior. It's all a big conspiracy and smear campaign. Why is everybody always pickin' on him? The cops arrested him twice for no reason at all, just because they have nothing better to do with their time (in FL) but pick a name at random out of the phone book and haul him in. His inappropriate chuckling had JM and Douglas giving each other looks of alarm. It kept getting worse. That his son committed a brutal double homicide is something he seems to see as insignifcant as an, "Oh, well." Then we get lawyer, August Jay Stanton, looking like an undertaker or a hanging judge in an old-timey Western movie. What a cast of characters. Someone should make a horror movie from this story. It's worse than "Pacific Heights". 😳 I had to refresh my knowledge of Druids: Quote a priest, magician, or soothsayer in the ancient Celtic religion. a member of a present-day group claiming to represent or be derived from this religion. I don't think that sounds like Alan. I feel it might be better for him, and innocent bystanders, if he joins his son in Chattahoochee. 6 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama May 5, 2022 Share May 5, 2022 (edited) New "Hotel Horror" (Nothing can equal the second case on yesterday's show) Case 1-Plaintiff suing defendant over the suite they were supposed to share in Atlantic City, for $470. Plaintiff says room had two teeny tiny beds, smelled bad, and she was out in the cold when defendant threw her out, hotel room was in defendant's name. Litigants used to work at a funeral home in New York. They were going to a 70's party. Defendant sent the pictures of the hotel room to plaintiff, however, room wasn't acceptible. Room smelled like B.O., Plaintiff thought they were getting a suite, with a living room. When plaintiff and another friend arrived, they went into the hotel room, and it wasn't a suite, very tiny, 2 tiny beds, and room reaked. Plaintiff says defendant and another friend were all drinking, and the defendant's friend was blotto. So, plaintiff says defendant and friend told plaintiff and other friend to get out of the room, or they were calling the police. So, plaintiff and her friend left. Defendant says photos of suite were from a different hotel, not the suite defendant wanted to rent. Defendant says when plaintiff sent the $250, that defendant told her it wasn't a suite, and two people would have to share each queen bed in the room (it was at the Claridge). Texts from plaintiff show she knew it was a 1 bedroom, with 2 queen beds. Plaintiff gets $250 for the room, and that's it. (So, the litigants used to work in a funeral home, so the room smell was worse?) Case 2-Little old lady get $470 plus court costs to get her fridge repair costs back from shady defendant. Repairman/defendant is obviously a jerk. Edited May 5, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 5, 2022 Share May 5, 2022 (edited) 57 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: New "Hotel Horror" Okay, I'm trying to imagine a woman who walks around emitting such a vile stench it sickens someone who works at a funeral home. It seems Def, who looks as though she went to a wig store and requested the "Emo Raggedy Ann" look, has no problem piling into a small double bed with the skunk. Maybe she thought if she got drunk enough it wouldn't matter. Naturally this fun weekend turns into a big kerfuffle and fight, as usual on this show. P got a little mixed up between "fumigate" and "deodorize", but maybe fumigation was needed too. Sorry, Def, but sprays just won't do it. Reminds me of a commercial from many years ago: A woman is cooking fish. Her brat comes home from school and says, "Ewww! It smells like fish here!" The mom grabs a can of room spray. Kid comes out of her room and says, "Ewww! Now it smells like fish and ROSES!" Who wants to breathe in lilacs and armpits? Douglas is cracking up in a major way during this tale. I get P. I'm extremely sensititve to odours as well and no way could I share a small room with a women who smells worse than a longshoreman after a 10-hour shift in July. How can you WALK AROUND IN PUBLIC STINKING?? I guess her nose is paralyzed and she can't smell herself anymore but someone needs to inform her. I also get what JM said, that P could have sucked it up for one night but I doubt I would have been able to do so without being physically ill. 57 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Case 2-Little old lady get $470 plus court costs to get her fridge repair costs back from shady defendant. Christopher, you are a petty crook and a liar who denies everything while JM is reading in black and white with her own lyin' eyes the very words he sent in texts. I still think this show should hand out pamphlets to prospective litigants, explaining the terms they throw around here. "Pain and suffering" and "mental anguish" are not applicable when someone does not live up to the terms of the contract. "Annoyance/Anger" would be the proper terms and those are not compensable. Having watched "Hoarders" and seen about 1,000 cockroaches racing around an opened fridge I completely agree with P not wanting a used fridge in her home. I do believe Def got a thuggish call from the grandson. How else would he have known P even has a grandson? Doesn't matter, because he deserved to be threatened and maybe even pummeled, the lying, spineless little slimeball. I'm glad P got back every cent. Edited May 5, 2022 by AngelaHunter 4 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama May 6, 2022 Share May 6, 2022 (edited) New, "Falling Overboard" Case 1-Plaintiff wants $1099 for a fishing rod that he owned, and defendant lost in the water, and defendant loaned bowfishing rig to plaintiff, and it was lost on the fishing trip. The plaintiff's sons were 13 and 15, and went on guided trip with defendant. Plaintiff leads alligator gar fishing trips for $600 (don't search for a picture of this creature if you are squeamish, or might have nightmares, the fish are huge, ugly, and may haunt you). The fishing rod was for bowfishing, where it's like a cross bow, or some other device to get fish. Defendant was on the edge board, and the fishing rod was lost when defendant fell off. Plaintiff is also proud of his son breaking an arrow off in some poor fish, and thinks son should be proud of missing, and torturing an animal. Since this, plaintiff updated his contract. Defendant claims the boat was unsafe, should have had side rails to keeps him from falling off, or losing the bowfishing gear. Plaintiff offered either $100 or $300. JM gives depreciated bowfishing gear to plaintiff, so $750. Defendant is still a jerk. Case 2-Plaintiff wanted fake dreads attached, but wanted real hair, not synthetic, and she got a rash (plaintiff's case is giving me a rash), and claims it was synthetic hair. Defendant says she used real human hair on plaintiff, and she only works with human hair. As JM says to plaintiff, if she had a rash, then why did she only send a picture of her hair, and not the rash? Defendant also says plaintiff was partying at the hotel she stayed at, and locked her kid out of the room. As Harvey says, this is a 'dreadful' case. Harvey needs to go away, his puns are getting stranger. Defendant claims plaintiff is lying, it was real hair, and dreads can take months to settle down (or whatever she was saying, I have no clue about this case). Plaintiff case is dismissed, defendant gets nothing. Edited May 6, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 6, 2022 Share May 6, 2022 20 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Case 1-Plaintiff wants $1099 for a fishing rod that he owned, and defendant lost in the water Giggling, doughy, silly, jerk-off Daddy wants to show his sons the meaning of being a MAN, hunting down and shooting fish with bows at night. The problem is that Daddy can't go on a boat without having a few drinks of some substance I've never heard of and falling in the water. He whines that no one tied him to the boat with a velcro wristband, or put up railings, or child-proofed the boat so of course he fell overboard, something his kids managed to avoid doing. Therefore it's not his fault he lost P's equipment. Yes, I know this is the kind of whining and excuses - "You didn't make sure I was safe!" - you expect from a child but now we get it from mature people. It kind of annoyed me when we learn that one of the boys shot a big fish with an arrow, but the arrow broke. P told the boy he should frame the broken arrow to show off, and now a fish is swimming around with a big arrow embedded in its flesh for "sport". Nice. 28 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Case 2-Plaintiff wanted fake dreads attached Ugh. We're back to hair/dread/wig dilemmas/wars/pain and suffering. P announces, "I'm a single mother!" as though her crappy judgment makes her special. Not on this show! However, she's willing to drag her 6-year-old on a 2 1/2 trip, pay for a hotel and spend 500$ for these much-needed dreads. I believed the D when she said P ditched the kid in the room, or locked him out of it while she went to some club. JM to both litigants: "Do you have any evidence at all for what you are claiming?" Both of them: "Nope. None. Take our words for it." Me: Buzz off, both of you. 31 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: As Harvey says, this is a 'dreadful' case. Harvey needs to go away, his puns are getting stranger. And you, Levin? Piss off, creepy shortstuff. 5 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama May 9, 2022 Share May 9, 2022 (edited) "Wedding Video War" new Case 1-Plaintiff bride hired defendant to photograph and video her wedding. Another person who had photos and videos done, and wanted them instantly. She only received some photos, and not the video. Then, defendant says he lost the video of the reception, and had numerous other stupid excuses why he didn't do the work. She also wanted photos printed, but she didn't pay for them. The 400 photo album was supposed to be done by defendant, but it's not in the contract. Defendant says they had a photographers, videos, and two more people running the photo booth. Defendant offered a $350 refund out of the $2750 total cost of the photos/videos. I had to laugh when plaintiff claims the uploaded to Youtube video had no sound, and then JM plays it, and it's fine. JM thinks defendant just wants a settlement, and not to do any more work. JM orders a refund of $2000. Case 2-PLaintiff suing his wife's friend because he sold her furniture, and she never paid for it. $1300 was the cost. Defendant said he only gave her a bed, and she had to trash the mattress, and she only got a couple of other pieces, and it wasn't worth $1300. Then there's something about other pieces, a china closet, Plaintiff claims everything was $1300, but defendant says everything was free. Defendant claims she gave plaintiff $300. Then, after plaintiff kept telling defendant to pay him more, she said she was bringing all of the furniture back. I never thought, even on this show, that I would hear two grown people argue about who peed or didn't pee on a mattress. Decision is everyone is a jerk, the judge's decision is plaintiff gets $1,300. Edited May 9, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 9, 2022 Share May 9, 2022 43 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: "Wedding Video War" At first I thought we had another Bridezilla, but then we hear the arrogant D state there is no video. His SD card got ruined because there was so much rushing and "back and forth" to get to the reception. JM wants to know how that damaged his SD card, but he just continues to babble nonsense and BS. JM calls him a "thief" which is accurate. P needs to start de-cluttering now, and why did she change locations during the case? Doug in the Hall tells D this case made him look pretty bad. D says, "I look better than you. I'm amazing. I walk on water." Okay. If you say so, you lying thief. Doug snickers. So now we get pre-engagement parties, engagemant parties, pre-wedding parties and wedding parties? I see why the house is so jam-packed. I weep that I got married before these new traditions and live-streaming this momentous event on YT. I could have really cleaned up. 46 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Case 2-PLaintiff suing his wife's friend because he sold her furniture, and she never paid for it. $1300 was the cost P is yet another one who puts absolute trust in someone of the same religion/race/nationality, etc., as his wife. I admit I know little about religion, but does the Buddhist faith condone cheating, lying, and using foul language? If not, what makes her a Buddhist? Def seems to think it's all good. I was distracted by her ginormous, sad eyelashes, hooked talons, and janky wig, all of which she could afford, but she didn't have enough left over to pay for her furniture. She was too busy and tired to drive to where P lives and pay him. She has no idea there are other ways to make payments. Even a regular, old-fashioned check was impossible due to her exhaustion. I also admit I have never taken a whole bunch of furniture I did not want. I guess Def just happened to show up at the storage locker and when told she was getting a bed, wall unit, computer desk, etc. felt she had no choice to but take it all home, since it was free and all. 58 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: I never thought, even on this show, that I would hear two grown people argue about who peed or didn't pee on a mattress. That was pretty disgusting, but we've heard worse; "DIRTY CROTCH"! Just ask Levin. Also - never ever buy used beds or upholstered furniture, "I'm tellin' you!". You have no idea what's in it. Pee (and other bodily fluids 🤢), bedbugs, and roaches could all be little bonuses. 6 Link to comment
DoctorK May 10, 2022 Share May 10, 2022 Today we had two of my least favorite types of cases: wedding catering and hair salon rental. For wedding disputes about catering, I usually get a strong sense that both sides are exaggerating at a minimum or just plain lying. Salon rentals seem to mostly include at least one (if not all) litigant who has no concept of how to run a business, what a lease means, paying rent, giving notice, etc. To me, both types are boring and dreary. YMMV as always. 5 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama May 10, 2022 Share May 10, 2022 (edited) "Food Fiasco" new. Case 1-Jennifer and Tom, bridal couple hired defendant to cater their wedding. This was two years ago. The couple want a total refund, $3,000, and claim there wasn't enough food, people left early because they were hungry, and ordered in pizzas, and bride wants to be paid for the pizzas she ordered. This happened on Long Island. The wedding happened in 2019, there was a Facebook messenger contract with the menu, for 140 people. However, since 2020 defendant blocked plaintiffs, so they can't show a lot of the conversation. Bride claims they had too much alcohol, and not enough food. Reception was supposed to go from 11 am to 5 pm, and people left hours early to get something to eat. They claim there were supposed to be seven different types of tea sandwiches, , assorted bagels and spread, 70 lbs. of eggs, mimosas, donuts. They also had bacon and eggs, chicken and waffles. This was a brunch type of meal. Bride claims Meka, the defendant, locked the doors to the reception area, and the officiant had to open the doors to reception hall, where the food, photo booth, etc. was held. However, people started leaving after the cake cutting, which is entirely normal. I agree with JM, what kind of friend calls you up, and complains about the food? This was for 140 people, and I'm wondering how $3,000 was supposed to cover preparing and serving this much food for a six hour reception? The food pictured by defendant looks great French Toast cups, waffles and chicken, the platters look great. There were cheese and cracker trays, and other food. For $3,000 I think it was plenty of food. The bridal couple did a beer chugging during the ceremony, and bride is hold a different drink in every picture, and defendant points out the bride is looking very flushed by part of the way through the reception. For $3,000, and 140 people, that's $21 a person, even where I live, that's cheap, and this was in New York. A plated meal here would cost $100 to $200 per person, so a brunch would probably cost at least $30 or more per person, and a brunch for that price wouldn't last more than a couple of hours, so defendant gave plaintiffs a bargain. The only thing missing were tea sandwiches. The brunch buffets at many places here are at least $30 for each person, and don't last for 6 hours. Plaintiffs get $1287, because of the missing tea sandwiches, and because the tables looked sparse to JM. ANother case where JM gives money to some entitled fool, and because it's from the show award pool, gives way too much money. I would have been surprised if $3,000 would feed 40 people for six hours, let alone 140 people. Case 2-Another boring salon case. Plaintiff salons owner rents suites to barbers and stylists, fully equipped, they own 27 suites, stylists rent directly from plaintiff. Defendant only had to bring their individual tools, and supplies. Defendant was a suite renter, and is accused of not giving 30 days notice, blaming it on her own life situation, the rent raised but at the end of the lease period when lease would have to be renewed anyway. Plaintiff says one evening, two customers who had a history with each other, had a fight, two stylists joined in, and the police had to be called. Plaintiff has security cameras in the building, and she waived the rent of the two booth renters, and let them leave early, and the stylists moved out immediately. The fight happened in March, and she didn't move out until September. Defendant didn't move elsewhere, but shut her business down. Defendant sounds like she's half asleep. Defendant is talking from a hotel room too. PLaintiff wants a month rent, $650, late fees, and a cleaning fee, plus a repainting fee because defendant painted the room dark grey, without permission. Of course, plaintiff denies she let anyone repaint the suite like that. The contract says you have to use her professional painter, to avoid bad paint jobs, and drips all over on the floor. The defendant actually painted around the TV on the wall. Defendant moved without notice, left without any notice. Plaintiff gets 1 month's rent, cleaning fees, $450 (plaintiff keeps the $650 security deposit). (Not just low rent places have fights. If you want to hear about an upscale place where they had fights, here goes! I know of two huge fights, at the Library of Congress, among staff members. One had a couple of staffers rolling around and punching each other in the middle of the day. The other one was between people from two countries, while their respective countries were fighting. One of the groups was moved to another part of the library, because the two sides just wouldn't quit. Everyone one involved was older, and should have known better. You knew the L of C was upscale because of the marble bathrooms, and marble everything else). I loved hearing about John's parents in the After the Verdict segment. Edited May 11, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 10, 2022 Share May 10, 2022 23 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: I agree with JM, what kind of friend calls you up, and complains about the food? I think Ms. Jennifer (why was her chin so red?), IMO, left out the fact that she asked about the food and probably guided the conversation, i.e., "Some people said they didn't get to eat. I'm thinking of suing the caterer. Should I? Tell me what you think?" I find it unimaginable that anyone would call the bride and bitch about anything at the wedding. Personally I was more shocked at the blushing bride guzzling a pitcher of beer at the altar(?) Did I imagine that? They are craft beer afficionados but I have a feeling Tom is not getting his fair share. Adults want to trust contracts for important events to vague FB messages with no real specifications and that can be deleted or altered and client blocked, so shouldn't be shocked when things don't go the way you say you wanted or imagined them to. IMO, the happy couple didn't deserve all that money back. I thought maybe 600$ but I'm no judge. 32 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Case 2-Another boring salon case Def stayed there 2 years but then she had "emotional turmoil". Another stylist left, so she without "emotional support". She broke up with her boyfriend! She was going through so much! How could anyone expect her to give notice? The world should be her mommy. Little Ms. Entitled Millennial states, "If my workspace isn't working for me, I leave. Simple as that." JM disabuses her of that notion when a written contract is involved. And then of course there are actual fistfights going on there. I guess the clientele isn't too upscale, but when P's husband goes to ask if everything is okay because D hasn't paid her rent, she never mentions she's leaving. Why should she when "My happiness and well-being is important and it's none of his business that I'm leaving." That reminded me of a woman who caused an accident because she didn't use her turn signal. When asked why she replied that "It's no one's business where I'm going." 🤡 I enjoyed hearing about John's parents. 1 6 Link to comment
Pepper the Cat May 11, 2022 Share May 11, 2022 Gotta say I loved the sign behind the defendant in the first case. I believe it said “ In case of emergency send Bacon” 5 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama May 11, 2022 Share May 11, 2022 (edited) New, "Bickering With your Neighbor" Case 1-Plaintiff says his neighbor did some construction work, including on the cornice, 2 stories high, for $1,635. The edge stair step brick cornice was 2 stories high, and bricks were coming off. Plaintiff says this home is a rental property, and when neighbor/defendant tore down and rebuilt his side of the house, some work wasn't up to snuff. Construction went on for 12 to 18 months. The cornice looks like a stair step but from the underneath, so a loose brick is very dangerous. Defendant says it was a duplex conversion, adding a third story to the two story home, The pictures of the two houses, look like row houses, with plaintiff's rental property is two stories. Plaintiff told defendant about the issue, defendant says it was plaintiff's to pay for and fix. Plaintiff called a roofer, and had the cornice taken down, and defendant still refuses to fix it. Defendant also claims the plaintiff's row house is falling down, and everything is plaintiff's problem to fix. Plaintiff says it's a common wall, so a mutual problem to fix. Plaintiff asked his insurance company for their view of the issue, and insurance company said it was poor construction by defendant's workers. Defendant claims that in the 1970's the grandfathers had an issues with construction of the two row houses, but only his grandfather fixed it correctly. He blames the cornice issue on the old construction. However, the cornice on the other side of the plaintiff's row house is fine, and the cornice where defendant's construction workers cut defendant's house loose from planitiff's house. The issue was caused entirely by defendant's construction workers. $1635 to plaintiff. After the verdict, the question is when Judge John was presiding over a 14-year-old's stabbing by his best friend, and it was on a true crime show, if he has issues separating the case from his own life. (Defendant was Michael Hernandez, and he was 26 by the time the sentence was decided for the second time). Judge John also added 30 years for Hernandez's assault on another student, the other student survived. The 14 year-old was convicted, and sentenced to life in prison, appealed and received the same sentence. In May 2021, Michael Hernandez died in prison. Both judges say they've had problems with separating themselves from horrible cases. Case 2-Plaintiff lived in defendant's house for two years, and she says it was hell. Hell is appropriate, because the wall decoration behind plaintiff's head looks like devil's horns. Plaintiff wants her security back, because all of the rug and other water damages were from other tenants flooding her apartment. Defendant /landlady says there was only one minor issue from the upstairs tenant's kid flushing toys, that happened two or three times, it was fixed and there were no other leaks. Landlady says plaintiff damaged other tenant's cars, and stole checks. Defendant claims the rug was soaked by plaintiff's dog, floors were warped the same way, and she's not returning a penny to plaintiff. Landlady says walls were full of holes, and damages. Everything was filthy, and apartment was trashed. Plaintiff moved out a few days late, and still claims she didn't have time to clean. Plaintiff had six months notice that her lease wasn't going to be renewed. No move in pictures by landlady, just move out pictures. Plaintiff blames everything on water leaks, including big holes in walls, and a full wall in the bathroom with the drywall surface peeled off. Landlady says water never leaked into son's bedroom, but there certainly are holes and door damages. Water leak on ceiling looks bad, but is that the same apartment? JM is already saying the $1300 security isn't going to be the landlady's to keep. Plaintiff gets half of the security back, $650. (Why don't all landlords take move in and move out pictures?) Case 3-Plaintiff says defendant blew a stop sign, and hit hiscar, and he wants $1468. Defendants say plaintiff keeps changing the story, and after he hit her 14-year-old son, he was mean to him. So, defendant son blew the stop sign, caused the accident, and defendant mother wants $500 for her son's medical bills. Plaintiff says he was going slowly, was hit by defendant on the electric scooter. Plaintiff says he told defendant son to stay still, called an ambulance for him, thought he was clearly concussed. Defendant son and mother claim it wasn't an electric scooter, but a regular one. Defendant son's ridiculous story is he was going downhill on the electric scooter, the brakes failed, and it wasn't his fault. Plaintiff tried to find a cheaper body shop, but couldn't. However, defendant says it was a regular scooter, not electric. Plaintiff gets $1468, but from the minor son, so plaintiff will receive nothing. Defendant gets nothing. As JM says, defendant son is lucky he survived. Edited May 12, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 11, 2022 Share May 11, 2022 11 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: New, "Bickering With your Neighbor" Nice job on those bricks haphazardly thrown up there, poised to crush someone's skull at any moment. This case was boring for me. 12 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Case 2-Plaintiff lived in defendant's house for two years, and she says it was hell. Didn't she say she endured this hell on earth for three years, suffering untold torture? She was given notice to move around April and left in Nov but that didn't give her enough time to clean the filth splashed all over the walls - what the hell was that? - or empty the refrigerator. Even though she stayed three days past the move out date, she swears she would have come back sometime to clean up the mess. That's what they all say. Place looked like a dump anyway. LaChaka, I must say that particular wig is doing you no favours. At all. Levin says, "Def says this was the tenant from YOU KNOW WHERE". Gee, Levin, of all the vile things you say, "Hell" is verboten? "It's the case of Slumdog, No Millionaire". I wonder how much time it took him to think of that? If only someone could do something about this creepy, mouthy, idiotic little troll. Yeah, I know - someone could, but it would be illegal. 28 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Case 3-Plaintiff says defendant blew a stop sign, and hit hiscar, and he wants $1468. Big Momma Bear claims that P "aggressively" grabbed her baby boy after the accident and (aggressively?) asked him, "Are you okay?" She wasn't there, but just knows this happened. Therefore no one need pay for the damage to P's car. She thought it would be 60$. Yeah, it probably would have been maybe in 1944. Boy states that no, he can't get a job to pay. He watches or engages in sports. At the very least maybe he learned that he needs to obey traffic signs like everyone else. Good thing this case was heard here and P will get his money since he'd never collect a dime from Def, whose mommy thinks she's owed 500$ for her son recklessly crashing into P's car. 34 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Both judges say they've had problems with separating themselves from horrible cases. I could never be a lawyer, and JM, it's not just people who have kids who are very disturbed by the violence inflicted on helpless children. I get disturbed just watching this show and hearing about the rutting, careless breeders dropping babies all over the place and dumping them or neglecting/abusing them and having them taken away. 😡 I've been watching a show on some free channels I got and one of them is "Dr.G, Medical Examiner". While some of them are tragic, they are also very educational and interesting, but when the cases concern children or babies, I can't watch them. If I were a lawyer I too would have a mental breakdown and become homicidal when seeing the savagery perpetrated on the most defenseless of victims. Good thing I'm not in charge or "Off with his/her head!" would be commonly heard. 1 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama May 12, 2022 Share May 12, 2022 "Harassing an Employee" new, Case 1-Plaintiff was working at Walmart, he was promoted to supervisor, after she didn't get a promotion to supervisor after working for one month, and he got the job of supervisor, she blamed him for not getting the job. Plaintiff says defendant's complaints against him, including he threatened to kill her resulted in his suspension, and a two year court cases to clear his name. He's suing her for false accusations, and lost wages. Defendant claims he did say he was going to kill her, actually stab her in the heart, and she should have been a supervisor too. Walmart suspended him without pay for a month, and police decided to charge him. I've already decided who I think was the liar here. JM doesn't have a clue about zero tolerance policies at big corporations. No one has a copy of the video. Defendant admits that plaintiff has never contacted her since this incident. Plaintiff was found not guilty at trial, both litigants, and another co-worker testified. No video tape was shown, and the officer with the video tape never showed up in court for the final hearing. JM says both are exaggerating their anxiety, or both need to toughen up. How condescending of her. Plaintiff loses, and gets insulted by JM. However, being an equal opportunity abuser, JM also insults the defendant, and dismisses her case. Defendant installed iron gate for defendant, for $1300. Defendant says the rolling gate costs a total of $3500 to install everything plaintiff wanted, including making the driveway bigger, and reinstalled the gate. Plaintiff refuses to pay up, because he says one of the gates falls off. Defendant says that the gate is bent either because someone backed into it, or rammed it, but has no proof. Plaintiff gets his $1300 back. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 12, 2022 Share May 12, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: "Harassing an Employee" new, "The Aweful Battle of the Snowflakes" where some silly, bitchy Walmart employee acting like a nitwit doofus results in police, lawsuits, lawyers (even if only those fugazi public defenders) mental therapy, anxiety attacks, bad dreams, yellin' and cussin' by D's hubby, and purchase of heat for the Def to carry around. No one here saw the video so it's hard to say who was going a little overboard and not being truthful but someone took the video seriously. I understand def's phobia of snakes. I would freak out if a co-worker threw a rubber spider at me, which is why I never told the guys I worked with about my arachnaphobia. Was Def in her shed during this case? She should have taken a hint from P and put up a sheet to hide the mess. Edited May 12, 2022 by AngelaHunter Spelling. Not enough sleep. 5 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama May 13, 2022 Share May 13, 2022 (edited) "Crying Over a Car Crash" new Case 1-Plaintiff was coming home from the Piggly Wiggly, stopped at the stop sign, turned into the road, and then defendant slammed into the front of her car, hit the side of her car, triggered the air bags, and then defendant left without leaving her information, suing for $1500. Defendant says plaintiff made a left turn right in front of her, so it's all plaintiff's fault, $4406 in damages is her claim. Defendant claims she only went around the corner, to her daughter's house, because she was scared. JM wonders if defendant was drunk, and probably not insured. Defendant claims she had a valid license, hadn't been drinking, or using drugs. Defendant says she called 911 for the police to come to her home, and wasn't cited for leaving the scene of an accident. Defendant's car is smashed from back to front on the passenger side. Plaintiff says the driver wasn't the defendant, it was a younger woman. JM wants defendant's daughter to sit down and testify. Plaintiff can't identify if the daughter was the driver, but daughter says she wasn't driving. JM wants to know if the defendant's daughter's child was driving, the 16 year-old granddaughter has a learner's permit, but doesn't drive without mom or grandmother in the car. JM questions who had the right of way, and it was defendant. Plaintiff claim dismissed, she didn't have right of way so it was her fault. Defendant claims she didn't have plaintiff's insurance information to claim, because she left the scene of the accident. I'm questioning the lack of citation for either driver, and no police report or insurance claim, is this case a money grab? JM says both litigants are so nice. (I think this was a money grab, and a lot of overacting on both sides). $4406 is what the estimate is, but Blue Book value is $3857. So, $3857 to defendant. (Bonanza for a very bizarre accident, with no proof of who did what). Case 2-Plaintiff took his bike to the bike shop for repairs two years ago, claims defendant fixed it, but then the wheel locked up, and he fell and broke his collarbone, $1902 for medical bills. Defendant says he did nothing wrong, bike was fine when it left the shop, and two years later he doesn't owe the plaintiff a penny. Defendant shows some of the ways the accident could have happened. Plaintiff also rode his bike home and the bike was fine. Defendant says to check the tires, and quick release device before riding. Plaintiff case dismissed. Defendant explained exactly how the accident happened, and it wasn't defendant's fault. Edited May 13, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 13, 2022 Share May 13, 2022 2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: "Crying Over a Car Crash" Yeah, so I don't bother stopping at stop sign, crash into you but it's your fault. I too wonder how busy the cops there are that they didn't cite def for fleeing the scene of an accident, no matter how deeply she was in shock or all shooken up. Nothing for running a stop sign either. 2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff says the driver wasn't the defendant, it was a younger woman. Maybe it's as D said. She was wearing a different wig, maybe a "youth" style? 2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: JM says both litigants are so nice. In spite of all the tears and many tissues I don't agree with JM. P knew the accident was her fault yet was here trying to clean up, and def fled the scene. I see nothing overly "nice" here. Were either of them asked if they had insurance? 2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Case 2-Plaintiff took his bike to the bike shop for repairs two years ago, This was so boring I abandoned it to watch the worker here finish laying tile in my bathroom. So: I found him on CL... no, on FB and he says he's a contractor and "needs money bad". He said he's 'basically' homeless and wanted to bunk here but I told him he'd have to sleep in his truck but it's being repossessed. He asked for my HD card so he could buy a tile cutter, screws, and a hammer but he was gone so long I fear he may have used my card to buy a bunch of stuff for himself. Oh, well. I guess I'll find out when I check the HD charges 5 or 6 months from now. I trust him due our long history of friendship....no, I trust him because he has KIDS he needs to feed and a pregnant wife. They need to get their utilities turned back on! Since I have a really big heart I of course gave him cash and he refused to give me a receipt. The tiles are all wonky and there is cement flung all over the place but he promised to fix it next time he comes .Sounds good, right? RIGHT? I hope I don't end up on TPC, with all you bitches snarking at my day-core. 8 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama May 16, 2022 Share May 16, 2022 (edited) New "Crying Over a Cat" Case 1- Plaintiff wants $1,972 for vet bills, after defendants' three roving, vicious pit bulls attacked plaintiff's cat. Defendants claims it couldn't have been their three Pits, but obviously someone else's dogs that attacked the cat. Even though defendants' dog gets out. Plaintiff came home from work, and neighbor told him about the attack on the cat, the neighbor drove the three dogs off. Animal control report has the neighbor's testimony. Animal control took the cat to the vet they use. Another neighbor told plaintiff he saw the attack by the three dogs, and 10 days later the same dogs were running loose, neighbor videod the dogs running back to the defendants' house. JM doesn't want to accept the witness statements in the Animal Control report, she says it's hearsay. That's bull, she's accepted Animal Control reports just like police reports, they're both official documents. Defenant husband says the day his dogs were videod on the second occasion, and that's the only time they got out, and their dogs did not do the earlier attack on the cat. Defendants also claim the same day the cat was attacked that someone was attacked by three Pits on Ventura Blvd., and that proves his dogs didn't do it (that is total bull pucky). Defendants also told Animal Control that their dogs never get out, which is a lie. I'm so sick of people like the defendants who call their vicious, roaming animals nanny dogs, say they never hurt anything, and besides their dog was never out of their yard. The video shows the defendants' three dogs running loose, and the defendant husband admitting they're his dogs. Poor cat was in the hospital for eight days, and walks very stiff and slowly now. Plaintiff receives $1,972. (Defendants still say it wasn't their dog, but they didn't have to pay a penny, since the show pays the award). (Harvey says if you have roaming dogs, call Animal Control. Many places don't have animal control, or at least not outside the city limits.) Case 2-Plaintiff paid defendant $2420 to put high impact shutters on his house, and they were never installed. Defendant cites her no refund after 72 hours policy, and cites the supply chain issues. Except, defendant says it can take up to six months to get the shutters, but it's been over 9 months. Plaintiff gets $2042 plus court costs, and interest since the order was placed. Case 3-Plaintiff suing for $871 for defendant's bad print job on a car wrap. Defendant says plaintiff approved color, layout, etc. and plaintiff got what he paid for, and the car looked exactly as promised. Plaintiff shows you can barely see the decals on either side of the car. Defendant says he does good work, and wrap looks fine. There is dispute over if plaintiff approved both sides of the wrap, or not. Unfortunately, plaintiff approved the proofs and preliminary design, and all of this happened a year ago too. Plaintiff loses, he took too long to come to court, and his case was garbage anyway. Edited May 16, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 16, 2022 Share May 16, 2022 39 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Case 2-Plaintiff $2420 to put high impact shutters on his house, and they were never installed. P has the patience of Job, it seems. His wife could have become pregnant the day they ordered the shutters, gestated for nine months, had the baby, and still no shutters. Def was extremely annoying with her litany of "poor us" excuses - "I just work here" "Someone put my name in the wrong place" "I got COVID", "I have up to 155 calls to return (Yeah, I can see why!)". Like so many other litigants she had no problem refunding a client who never got what he paid for, except she didn't. 5 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama May 17, 2022 Share May 17, 2022 (edited) ""Nightmare Neighbor" new, and everyone is so emotional today. Case 1-Plaintiff claims neighbor slashed her tires, and sugaring her gas tank. Plaintiff wants $5,000, to pay for tires, rims, gas tank work. Defendant says superintendent of apartment complex has a video of a man vandalizing the car. Plaintiff claims defendant is mean to her. First incident was slashed tires. Plaintiff claims someone told her that the defendant Carmen did it, but won't say who 'someone' or 'somebody' is, and has no witnesses. Plaintiff says she has no idea why defendant would persecute her. Defendant says she has been staying at her daughter's home for the last nine months, while her daughter has been undergoing treatment for cancer, and defendant has only come to her apartment for picking up more clothes, and her mail, and to pay her rent. Then the gloves come off, and defendant claims lots of people are mad at plaintiff, including some man that plaintiff owes money to for drugs. Defendant says plaintiff has asked her for money, never repays anything, and wants to know where to buy Percocet, and Oxy. Defendant says security video showed a man slashing the tires, but that was automatically erased 13 days later. Second incident was the gas tank getting sugared. Plaintiff blames this on defendant too, while screaming at the camera. Then, plaintiff keeps waving money at the camera. Police reports say nothing about defendant. Defendant wins, and plaintiff is a big loser. Now plaintiff is yelling at Doug. (I think plaintiff would be more understandable if she had all of her teeth, and if she stopped screaming). Case 2- Plaintiff Ms. Threat (I love that name) hired defendant to fix her roof, say he smoked pot at her tenant's house (where the roofing job was being done), found out he was unlicensed, didn't pull permits. Defendant says he did the work, and plaintiff has no right to a refund. Defendant admits he's not licensed or bonded, and enjoys Weed, doesn't smoke on the job. There all kinds of strange complaints from the tenants, and defendant claims the tenant claimed to be a roofer too. JM pulls the daughter of a contractor routine again. Defendant claims he bought a lot of materials, but has no receipt, claims plaintiff should have pulled the permit. Defendant keeps $300. Plaintiff gets $1700 back. Doug is savage to defendant, telling him to get a permit, and a roofing license. Judge John says taking an apple off of a branch hanging over the sidewalk is theft, but JM rats Judge John out for taking a Peach off of a branch hanging over the fence onto the hotel they were staying at. Case 3-Plaintiff says defendant didn't pay her for his portion of the $1200 for his part of the trip to Jamaica, bet it was only a loan after defendant dumped her. Plaintiff gets $1,000. After the Verdict is about a child exposed to lead, and parent claims it's from the home they are leasing. The kid now has to take iron pills, so I'm guessing they were treated for lead, and that caused anemia? Yes, Judge John is right, since 1978 lead paint has been prohibited in residential buildings. However, I know of buildings that had new paint from Home Depot, in 1995, that turned out to have lead in it, so everything in the building had to be remediated (our guess was that the paint was mixed outside of the U.S., and the rules are different). Then, Judge Marilyn says call the landlord and tell them to have your rental tested, but I bet the doctor or hospital probably contacted the health department already. It may not have been the rental property, but somewhere else, and old toys, and other items have lead paint. It could have been a babysitter's property, or day care that had the lead paint too. Edited May 18, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 17, 2022 Share May 17, 2022 10 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: ""Nightmare Neighbor" new, and everyone is so emotional today. Everyone is hysterical today! OMG, I couldn't believe JM didn't tell those shrieking witches to take the volume down. Accusations of drug-dealing are hurled around and money is waved in front of the camera. I have no idea what these biddies were screeching about because none of it made sense. All evidence is second/third hand hearsay and no 5K lottery is awarded. I'm pretty sure they continued to scream at Doug in the hall. Ms. Threat vs the crooked roofing guy is just the usual: I hire someone on the cheap and just assume he's bonded and licensed, until something goes wrong then I'm all about the proper credentials. Def is just a run-of-the-mill crook who pretends he never bothers getting receipts for purchases he's made. Ms Threat must be a mime in her spare time, as she displays overly-exaggerated expressions of shock, disbelief, scorn, and horror at everything crook def. says. Rachet wig alert. 18 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Case 3-Plaintiff says defendant didn't pay her for his portion of the $1200 for his part of the trip to Jamaica I cut this short, but was kind of bemused at P, who is well-spoken and articulate yet had the goofy Def, Jalil, as her loverboy. Jalil, who is a 32-year-old man says he doesn't bother with money. It means nothing to him. Someone could tell him to pay them 500$ and he would just do it without asking what it's for. He's just so above such petty shit and besides, there are other women panting for what he's got. Sadly, I do believe that. 4 Link to comment
rcc May 17, 2022 Share May 17, 2022 I couldn't understand a word the first case plaintiff had to say or scream. Bad audio didn't help. Other two cases had irresponsible defendants. I lol'd at all of them. 3 Link to comment
Pepper the Cat May 17, 2022 Share May 17, 2022 1 hour ago, rcc said: I couldn't understand a word the first case plaintiff had to say or scream. Bad audio didn't help. Other two cases had irresponsible defendants. I lol'd at all of them. I had to put closed caption on to understand her. 2 Link to comment
rcc May 18, 2022 Share May 18, 2022 14 hours ago, Pepper the Cat said: I had to put closed caption on to understand her. Lol I should have done that. 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama May 18, 2022 Share May 18, 2022 (edited) (Note, my closed caption goes whacky on this show, so captions don't help me). New, "Tussle With a Tailor". Case 1-Plaintiff claims defendant tailor's alterations to his new suit ruined it, and he had to buy a replacement suit. Tailor claims the plaintiff kept changing his mind about the fit, and he even bought a new suit for the plaintiff, but plaintiff still isn't happy. PLaintiff wants $ for another suit, and says defendant ruining his new suit also ruined his installation at his first job as pastor. Tailor also made the lovely shirt plaintiff is wearing on camera. Tailor said to shorten the sleeves 1", plaintiff said do it 1/2", but when plaintiff picked up the suit, the sleeves were slightly different lengths, and plaintiff wanted them fixed. Even though plaintiff tried the suit on in front of the mirrors at the tailer's place, plaintiff only noticed the sleeves. Then, someone told plaintiff the black suit had white thread all the way down, and it showed. Hems weren't sewn properly, white thread was corrected, but plaintiff claims it caused a center crease on the jacket, instead of tapering the sides. Defendant shows the back of the jacket, and I don't see white thread anywhere. Sorry, but I used to sew a lot, and the center seam is standard, it goes from the nape of the neck to the back vent. Defendant says plaintiff wanted the center seam taken in, and then wanted it let back out. You can't alter, let the garment back out, and re-alter it endlessly. Defendant offered to buy another jacket for plaintiff, after multiple tries to alter, re-alter, and change again. I'm sick of the plaintiff already, actually I was sick of him after his first few sentences about the case. Then, defendant's mother died, and plaintiff wanted defendant to get his garments ready that day for the service the next day for plaintiff's invesiture. PLaintiff gets $780, (plaintiff wanted over $1,000) and it's a good way to shut him up. Defendant keeps the suit. Defendant says he learned to keep agreements in writing, and write down that once a garment is picked up, that leaving with the garment is agreeing that's it's correct, and no more alterations. Case 2-Plaintiff aunt makes custom drink coasters out of cork, and she made poodle coasters for defendant, and coasters cost $40, and defendant/niece never paid her. The coasters are ordered off of Amazon, and then the design is etched into the coaster. Defendant is plaintiff's niece, and claims she already paid her aunt the $40. Defendant sent the $40 by mail, and this is the second time she paid her aunt by mail. Plaintiff claims other relatives sold things to niece, and niece never paid them. Plaintiff wants $150, but the coasters were only $40. Plaintiff promised 20 of each coaster, 10 round and 10 square, but defendant only was sent 8 coasters. So, all of this upset is over $20 worth of coasters? Plaintiff gets $20, plus court costs, no proof of payment from defendant. Edited May 19, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 18, 2022 Share May 18, 2022 (edited) 39 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: "Tussle With a Tailor". Boring. I just hate it when litigants have obviously spent quite some time writing and rehearsing their opening monolgues, probably in front of a mirror to make sure their expressions and gestures are appropriate, as the pastor did. I can't believe JM has the patience to listen to all that oratorical hogwash. 39 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: I'm sick of the plaintiff already, actually I was sick of him after his first few sentences about the case. Same! This reminded me of the two women who wanted the cheap and hired the teens from FB to paint their house. I don't know how old the def in the jacket case is but if you have a Very Important Event coming up you might want to hire someone with a lot of experience for that particular job. 39 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Case 2-Plaintiff She makes custom drink coasters out of cork, I got confused over who was the aunt and who the niece. P? Super-long gray hair is not a good fashion choice unless you're audtioning for the part of a witch in a Disney movie. ETA: BTW, I'm sure you're all on pins and needles waiting for the update on my bathroom reno. My contractor texxed me yestday saying he'll be back Friday. He wanted to know if it's okay if he brings a bag of weed and a bottle of Jack with him. Not wanting to be judgmental or politically incorrect I said "Sure"! Sadly his girlfriend texxed me today saying that her man stayed up all night drinking Jack and smoking weed and then today he had to leave town abruptly because some acquaintance of his was threatening him. 🙁 Oh, well. Back to FB and CL for me! Edited May 18, 2022 by AngelaHunter 1 1 4 Link to comment
Mrs Shibbles May 18, 2022 Share May 18, 2022 The pettiness of the cork coaster case was something. 1 3 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 18, 2022 Share May 18, 2022 49 minutes ago, Mrs Shibbles said: The pettiness of the cork coaster case was something. Yeah. Only mildly entertaining part was when "niece" said that her auntie was a "petual" liar, or a fraud and JM corrected it to "perpetual". It's always amusing to see a litigant who claims the other is a "very known liar", a thief, a con artist, etc, yet they continue doing business (usually borrowing money) with this miscreant. 5 Link to comment
Bookworm13 May 19, 2022 Share May 19, 2022 I’m so jealous you all are getting new eps, I’ve been stuck with reruns for the past week and a half. Though reading here, doesn’t sound like I missed much 😆 Today’s was the 2 middle-aged men who had no business being roommates since they were both crazy. If I have to watch a rerun, I’d prefer it not be something I’ve seen within the past month. Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 19, 2022 Share May 19, 2022 2 hours ago, Bookworm13 said: I’m so jealous you all are getting new eps You didn't miss much - unintelligible screeching, fighting over 20$, small-time crook contractors, poor grammar, and the usual desperate woman trying to buy the elusive love of some fugly, mooching loser. Strange that you're getting repeats, though. 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.