The People's Court - General Discussion

[CrazyInAlabama]

(I get the occasional rerun instead of a new episode, I'm guessing that when the new shows are downloaded, something happened, so the local station just ran a rerun.    However, my station has a recent rerun in the morning, so I saw the Cat Attack episode.   I really wish I hadn't watched that one). 

"Stealing From a Tenant. " new, 

Case 1-Plaintiff claims his brother's landlord stole money ($1723) as his ailing brother was being taken away by ambulance.    Defendant/landlord says he's using the money for the brother's rent, plaintiff wants the money from the landlord.    Plaintiff's brother was found unresponsive in his apartment, and after brother was in the hospital, he asked for his money.   Landlord says $600 was for that month's rent, but eventually died but plaintiff now wants the remaining money. 

Landlord/defendant says that he never met plaintiff until after the tenant/brother died, and there is also an estranged, but not divorced wife, so plaintiff isn't the next of kin.    Landlord says he will be glad to turn over the remaining money to the next of kin, or court appointed executor, but that's not the plaintiff. 

JM tells plaintiff he can try to be executor, but since there is an estranged wife, she will end up the executor.   However, plaintiff wants the burial funds, but he won't get it.   Plaintiff will have to claim the funeral expenses after applying in probate court.   

Case 2-Plaintiff designs clothes, and hired defendant to photograph them.   However, defendant wanted a credit for photos on social media, but plaintiff posted them without crediting her, so she won't give the photos to plaintiff.   (This sounds like they both came on TV for the publicity).   Then, JM asks defendant why plaintiff can't post photos without credit, I guess she doesn't know about copyright?    She's talked about it before, so I don't know why JM isn't recalling that.    Plaintiff just happened to show some of her 'interesting' clothing line during the case. 

Plaintiff posted the photos, and then her followers posted the photos.   But plaintiff posted the photos without the photo credit, so I think it's on the plaintiff.   Without the plaintiff posting without credit, the follower couldn't have used the photos.     JM keeps yelling, and then yells at the defendant when she tries to answer JM's questions. 

JM says it's not plaintiff's problem, orders the $586 to plaintiff, and says not to use the defendant again.     

[DoctorK]

38 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Then, JM asks defendant why plaintiff can't post photos without credit,

Yeah, I think that JM was uninformed and very hostile to the defendant who was admittedly somewhat abrasive. What I noticed more was that the plaintiff, who designs (and makes?) clothes can't do a simple short skirt (not a good choice for her by the way) that doesn't ride way up in the back, making the hem line inches higher in the back and getting close to the NSFW category. JM was sort of doing a Judge Judy, thinking she knows everything about everything, and wasn't listening to the attempted explanations (which may or may not have been persuasive. I did a fair amount of photography as a side hustle in college and the copyright, ownership and usage issues are pretty messy and vary from one locality to another.

[CrazyInAlabama]

New, "Suing Your Husband's Mistress"

Case 1-Plaintiff is divorcing her husband, but they're living in the same house.  Plaintiff claims defendant is boinking plaintiff's husband of 46 years, and wants $3,000 for mental anguish. Defendant met plaintiff's husband over 20 years ago, when he was boinking a friend, says she has a boyfriend, and never slept with plaintiff's husband.  Defendant also wants $3,000.   

Plaintiff saw a text message on her husband's phone, and when she called the number, defendant hung up.  Neither the husband or the defendant wanted to talk to plaintiff.   Then, plaintiff got the husband's phone, found a lot of calls and texts to defendant's number, Googled the number, and it belonged to defendant.   (Tacky note, does defendant's pink hair and leopard headband go together?   I don't think so, unless I missed another fashion trend, that's entirely possible).    Plaintiff is divorcing the husband.  

The big hangup is plaintiff won't get any of her benefits, such as medical, but will get part of his pension.    Plaintiff had to be treated twice for an STD.    

Defendant says she's not boinking plaintiff's husband, she has a boyfriend, and claims two of her friends had affairs with the husband, and he sniffed coke with a friend of hers. The text messages imply she's boinking the husband right after her boyfriend leaves her place. 

Defendant confuses being cited as 'correspondent' which plaintiff is alleging in the plantiff's divorce case that she's boinking the soon-to-be ex-husband, with correspondent where you write letters back and forth.     

Plaintiff case dismissed, and defendant case rejected.   As JM says, defendant is probably going to see the husband immediately, and he's just no good.   Hope plaintiff continued the divorce action. 

Case 2-PLaintiff claims defendant was going to start a tree trimming business for him.   Plaintiff bought a truck for defendant, and defendant was supposed to pay plaintiff every month, the payment was only talked about in text, but not with the amount of payments that were required.     What person goes into business with someone who's always down on his luck?  That's what the plaintiff said about defendant, but went into a business with him anyway, and bought defendant a truck. 

Plaintiff repoed the truck, and claims because he signed the title as lien holder, he had to right to take truck back since defendant still owes $2050 on the truck (isn't that why you sign as lien holder?).    JM starts yelling at plaintiff.   She's yelling a lot recently.   

Defendant gets the truck back, and then defendant claims plaintiff sent an acquaintance to disable the trucks with boots or whatever. Defendant calls the police.   JM says plaintiff isn't a lienholder, but gets $2050 from JM.  

(I don't know if they still have it, but NC used to have the alienation of affection lawsuits, and a wife actually sued and won for this). 

Edited May 20, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

2 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

New, "Suing Your Husband's Mistress"

Well, that was kind of nasty. While listening to P, who seems like a very nice lady, I immediately thought she can't really believe this is the first time her randy old goat cheated on her. Sure enough, we hear from D - a rough, nasty piece of work -  that the druggie duffer was "messing" with some other fine ladies. Nice of him to bring home filthy STDs to his wife.

Def says she doesn't want that horny old geezer. Could be true. Maybe she does just get him weed and cocaine.

So many women of the P's generation are stuck in rotten marriages because they can't support themselves and thought their husbands would always take care of them. If your partner knows you're totally dependent on him for everything, why shouldn't he do whatever he wants? He knows you can't leave him. Her husband doesn't even bother to reply when she wants to know what the hell is going on with him and the skanque - "Don't worry about it" = "Shut up and quit bothering me". But as JM said, these "alienation of affection" judgments went out 60 years ago. I don't know why so many women seem to blame the "other woman" more than they do their husbands. The other woman never made any vows to the wife and no one can "steal" an adult from a happy marriage.

14 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-PLaintiff claims defendant was going to start a tree trimming business for him.

Two more idiots, who think their verbal, no-contract, "I trusted him!" agreements are just fine until they aren't. Def waxed rather eloquent with his, "As the sun cracked" and more nonsense about his so-called fiancee and their two-or-three-month old kid sitting outside to watch this glorious sight when P's goon showed up to take back the truck.

I enjoyed JM calling P a liar. We don't hear her say that too often.

Levin: "It's the case of 'Mother Trucker'. I won't even bother saying "FUCK YOU, LEVIN!" Oops.

Douglas got a great deal of amusement from today's cases.

I also liked Judge John saying he likes getting food and wine as gifts. I agree! At my age, consumables are the very best gifts. We pretty much have all the gadgets we need. Give me a bottle of wine and I'm ecstatic.

[rcc]

JM was so frustrated with all of today's litigants. First the plaintiff has obviously been lied to for years and she sues the defendent. Lol Another case of the husband getting away with it and it is all the woman's fault. Second case was more stupidity, this time it was the defendent being so unaware. "Down on his luck" indeed.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Well, that was kind of nasty. While listening to P, who seems like a very nice lady, I immediately thought she can't really believe this is the first time her randy old goat cheated on her. Sure enough, we hear from D - a rough, nasty piece of work -  that the druggie duffer was "messing" with some other fine ladies. Nice of him to bring home filthy STDs to his wife.

I must confess that I watched this episode, yet missed this episode. I’ve been on vacation for two weeks and the seven hour time difference is make me loopy, lethargic and frankly, a bit mean.  Plaintiff did seem like a nice lady but for godsakes, kick that loser out of your life.  I’d bet cash that he has a library of 1960 Playboys in his closet.  Loser 

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Def says she doesn't want that horny old geezer. Could be true. Maybe she does just get him weed and cocaine.

Ugh.

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

So many women of the P's generation are stuck in rotten marriages because they can't support themselves and thought their husbands would always take care of them. If your partner knows you're totally dependent on him for everything, why shouldn't he do whatever he wants? He knows you can't leave him. Her husband doesn't even bother to reply when she wants to know what the hell is going on with him and the skanque - "Don't worry about it" = "Shut up and quit bothering me". But as JM said, these "alienation of affection" judgments went out 60 years ago. I don't know why so many women seem to blame the "other woman" more than they do their husbands. The other woman never made any vows to the wife and no one can "steal" an adult from a happy marriage.

A page from my typical workday.  

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Two more idiots, who think their verbal, no-contract, "I trusted him!" agreements are just fine until they aren't. Def waxed rather eloquent with his, "As the sun cracked" and more nonsense about his so-called fiancee and their two-or-three-month old kid sitting outside to watch this glorious sight when P's goon showed up to take back the truck.

The sun wasn’t the only thing cracked in this case 

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Douglas got a great deal of amusement from today's cases.

Douglas makes me smile. He’s a gem. 

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I also liked Judge John saying he likes getting food and wine as gifts. I agree! At my age, consumables are the very best gifts. We pretty much have all the gadgets we need. Give me a bottle of wine and I'm ecstatic.

Yes.  A thousand times yes.  I don’t want aprons, tea towels, overpowering candles or cute bunny figurines.   Assorted teas, cookies, bread and booze are more to my liking. 

Like some of the contestants on TPC…I’m easy. 

Edited May 20, 2022 by PsychoKlown

[AngelaHunter]

30 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Douglas makes me smile. He’s a gem.

He never used to snicker and sneer at the dumbass miscreants here, but a person can only listen to so much insanity and abject stupidity before becoming jaded. I get it.

31 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

A page from my typical workday.

If you're able to listen to stuff like this day in and day out I salute you. My financial advisor told me horror stories of women who found themselves alone after very long marriages and didn't know where the money was, never learned to drive and in fact, didn't even know how to write a check. "He took care of all that" is fine, until he's gone. Sad, it is.

[rcc]

JM couldn't wait to rule and get rid of the first case. Defendant busts open the door to get his stuff. It's her fault and he shouldn't pay. She was probably afraid he would hit her again. All this because he didn't want to take his one year old son to school. Probably daycare but he tells Doug his son is smart. Probably smarter than his jerk of a father!

[CrazyInAlabama]

New, but haven't a clue what the episode title is. OK, it's supposed to be "Door Disaster" the title wasn't on my cable guide, on TPC's website, TV Titan, but was on TPC Facebook page. 

Case 1-Plaintiff argues with boyfriend about taking 1 year old to school, so boyfriend couldn't get into the apartment, so he kicked the door in.    Plus, boyfriend says it was an illegal lock out and eviction, but he's not on the lease.  Then, Miss Desperate, gets back with him, and a month later the same thing happened.    So, she wants the money for the door repair.   Defendant says she shouldn't have locked him out, and it's her fault for locking him out.   

To 'fix' the door, defendant kicked the door back in place from the inside, since he kicked it in from the outside.  Door still doesn't close.  

Plaintiff gets the door money.   Then Doug asks defendant why a 1-year-old is going to school, and defendant says kid is really smart.   (There is no way the son is smart if this fool is really his father. ) This makes no sense to me either. 

Case 2-Plaintiff poolservice want $2821 for servicing the pool system for defendant.   Defendant claims they asked him if he wanted an automatic pool cleaning machine, and he claims he said no, but plaintiffs did it anyway.     Defendant claims he never wanted the pool cleaner, and then he sold the house, and told the pool cleaners he would no longer need the pool contract, or the cleaner.   

The pool service husband admits that they never had a contract for the cleaner to be installed, and the new owner of house won't pay them either.   Defendant cancelled the pool service before closing, and took care of the pool himself for a month. 

  Supposedly the new owner told the plaintiffs he would help them get the pool cleaning device back, so why didn't this happen? Then, plaintiffs wanted to put a lien on the new house owner's house he bought from defendant.   

Defendant told to get his payment records to JM, plaintiffs told to send JM copies of bills to her.    The pool cleaner is SOL, and the plaintiffs were paid for the unpaid pool cleaning service. 

Case 3-Plaintiff paid for private training sessions with defendant, but he put her into group training classes, and wants $966 back.   

$815 to plaintiff. 

Edited May 23, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

49 minutes ago, rcc said:

She was probably afraid he would hit her again. All this because he didn't want to take his one year old son to school.

She called the police more than once. He hit her, yet she took him back 3 times because...she doesn't know. They can beat each other, kick down doors or whatever shit their lives entail, but need to leave the kids out of their sordid messes. I FF this garbage so didn't hear about a 1-year-old who goes to 'school'. His parents certainly don't seem to be MENSA members. 😏

24 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff poolservice want $2821 for servicing the pool system for defendant.   

Like the litigants in the first case, these two seemed to be kind of challenged. These are business owners and the P hubby is all, "Yeah, I took this gadget to his place without telling or asking him and just dropped it in his pool. He knew it. He saw it visually!" and "No, we don't have any evidence with us at this time. We're on vacation." Okay. With their dopey affect here, I'm really surprised they're still in business. They try to put a lien on the house with the new owners of the home for their robo-vac! Dumb as stumps, they are.

29 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 3-Plaintiff paid for private training sessions with defendant, but he put her into group training classes, and wants $966 back. 

I was kind of mesmerized by twerpy little Def's blethering bullshit, toadying, brochure babblespeak and amazed JM let him continue with it for so long, when his generalizations had nothing to do with this case of a P who paid for something she didn't get. His momma got sick - yeah, we've never heard that excuse for stiffing someone before. Once again we get the tired, old, "I agree I owe the money, but I never paid it."

Levin: "You're a dumbbell!" This, from a supposedly educated, professional senior cititzen. Were you looking in the mirror, you little troll?

[Maverick]

 P Wife "Yes, I understand your honor."

 P Husband (whispering) "It's not 'your honor':

 Doug:  "I'm not the judge"

 Me: "Except of litigant's stupidity"

6 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

They can beat each other, kick down doors or whatever shit their lives entail, but need to leave the kids out of their sordid messes.

 Unfortunately, this is one of the reasons women stay with abusive partners/baby daddies.   They don't think they should be taking the kid's father away.   Outside looking in it's crazy of course, but human psychology is messy.  

[AngelaHunter]

9 hours ago, Maverick said:

Unfortunately, this is one of the reasons women stay with abusive partners/baby daddies.   They don't think they should be taking the kid's father away. 

Considering that the vast majority of mothers we see here are of the single kind and have never lived with their baby daddies and sometimes denied even "dating" them, I tend to think there is a motivation (often a selfish one) other than that for staying with an abusive man and that is just an excuse.

[AZChristian]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Considering that the vast majority of mothers we see here are of the single kind and have never lived with their baby daddies and sometimes denied even "dating" them, I tend to think there is a motivation (often a selfish one) other than that for staying with an abusive man and that is just an excuse.

In the world of court shows, conception occurs because "we was talkin'"; dating is not necessary.

[CrazyInAlabama]

New, "Tax Trouble"

Case 1-Plaintiff sold land to defendant, and he owes $249 for taxes, and he hasn't paid.   Defendant claims there were outstanding taxes, but he paid them on closing day, so he owes plaintiff nothing.   He is counter claiming for $250 calling the tax payment an 'unpaid loan'.   Defendant is a former friend, and the ex of her best friend. Defendant and plaintiff can't stop whining about the damn property tax.  Big question, did plaintiff try to rip off the tax department, or did defendant rip someone off?   Then, when defendant sent someone to clear the property, the person discovered a sign from the county that they were going to seize and sell the property for unpaid 2014 property taxes.   

Defendant and wife loaned money to plaintiff.   Now we get to the most interesting part.   Plaintiff's son is awaiting trial for murder.   She claims someone did a drive by with him as the target, and when either son or a friend shot back it killed someone, so felony murder rule applies.   Prosecutors saw this as a murder, and she's trying to raise funds to get a good defense attorney for the son.   The land sale was to raise money for son's attorney.  

JM's bleeding heart side comes out, and she wants defendant to prove the loans were not gifts.    

Plaintiff gets $249.  Defendant gets no loan payment. 

Now we get to hear about the Squeaker incident.   He was the neighbor's deaf cat, sleeping under JM's van, and she called John to get rid of the body, and he asked another neighbor to help with the disposal. 

 Plot twist is a year before this, Squeaker's owners' dog killed JM's cat right in front of her, so other neighbors said "Don't mess with Marilyn's animals, or she'll take care of your animal in retaliation".   

Then, the neighbors told their kids what happened, and the little 4-year-old of the neighbors came over yelling the JM killed their cat, and it wasn't an accident.   Who would let a deaf cat wander the streets?  Or a declawed one? 

Case 2-Plaintiff rented a room, and wants her $1800 back, and only stayed a week.    Defendant/landlord says she was a nightmare tenant, cranked the heat up to super high levels, etc.   Then, there's a bunch of he said, she said over a bed, a delay moving in, etc.   Then, when plaintiff moved in, defendant says she monopolized the laundry, cranked the heat up, etc.  Filled the fridge, counter space in the kitchen, etc.  

So, he told her to leave, so he can forget his counter claim.   And I bet plaintiff gets her money back. $1500 to plaintiff. 

Yes, $ to plaintiff

Edited May 24, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

17 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 1-Plaintiff sold land to defendant, and he owes $249 for taxes, and he hasn't paid.

This started as such petty crap - 'My very best friend/buddy/pal is shafting me for 249$". This dear friend seemed to know P was desperate for money and used that to cut the price of the lot in half.

But then we find out why she's so desperate for money: Her son is accused of murder but she of course claims he was just an innocent bystander as in the old, "Wrong place at the wrong time" excuse. I get it. Even Ted Bundy's mom swore he was a good boy who never hurt anyone. The"old" lawyer she hired doesn't do trials so she needed a new lawyer and she will spend every dime she's ever had to defend her boy. I may have missed something since I kept getting distracted by the sappy Hallmark sign on the wall behind P.

23 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Who would let a deaf cat wander the streets?

The same people who declaw cats and let them wander the streets. I skipped this segment.

24 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff rented a room, and wants her $1800 back, and only stayed a week. 

OMG. Michael, the old maid-ish, anal-retentive def might want to find a cheaper place to live if he can't afford where he is now without turning it into a boarding house and can't find a ghost tenant who doesn't eat or cook, doesn't do laundry, and has no friends and no possessions.

Michael gets quite animated as he describes how P ruined his pans. No, he has no pictures of the destruction P left in her wake after her one or two-week occupation of the room, but he has a witness who will corroborate his tale of woe. Oh. The witness isn't here.

When you invite adult strangers  to come and live with you and you charge them rent you might find they have some habits that might annoy you and they may not do everything exactly the same way you do. Boundaries, people!! Respect Michael's boundaries!...and don't spill things and don't do too much laundry and don't turn the heat on and don't have too much food!

Douglas was shaking his head and snickering in disbelief at what he was hearing.

4 hours ago, AZChristian said:

In the world of court shows, conception occurs because "we was talkin'"; dating is not necessary.

It's a magical world where you can get knocked up merely from 'conversating' and where midnight booty calls constitute a relationship.

[Welshman in Ca]

19 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

OMG. Michael, the old maid-ish, anal-retentive def might want to find a cheaper place to live if he can't afford where he is now without turning it into a boarding house and can't find a ghost tenant who doesn't eat or cook, doesn't do laundry, and has no friends and no possessions.

Michael gets quite animated as he describes how P ruined his pans. No, he has no pictures of the destruction P left in her wake after her one or two-week occupation of the room, but he has a witness who will corroborate his tale of woe. Oh. The witness isn't here.

When you invite adult strangers  to come and live with you and you charge them rent you might find they have some habits that might annoy you and they may not do everything exactly the same way you do. Boundaries, people!! Respect Michael's boundaries!...and don't spill things and don't do too much laundry and don't turn the heat on and don't have too much food!

I would agree with everything you say here but the heating part. I wouldn't care how much anyone was paying for rent they don't get to adjust my thermostat, if you're too cold put a fucking sweater on, too hot? stay in your room & get a cheap fan.

[CrazyInAlabama]

New, "Customer Crisis"

Case 1-Plaintiff bought Sea Moss (the dried mossy stuff in a ziploc bag, not the stuff in a jar that was on Shark Tank last Friday) and when it finally arrived, after a complaint to Pay Pal about non-delivery, it looked nastier than a competitor product.   Defendant has the Covid/hospital excuse, but I agree with plaintiff, it doesn't look like Sea Moss.   Plaintiff claims what he sent her is old, and expired.   This lawsuit is over $30 worth of product.  

Plaintiff gets her refund.

Case 2-Plaintiff had her applications for a liquor license for her bar denied twice, and hired the defendant to do her application, for $2140.   Defendant says plaintiff lied about her past, and that's why her applications were rejected, and for the third time when defendant did her application for her.    Turns out plaintiff lied about her criminal record, and her spouse's criminal records on the question about convictions for misdemeanors or felonys, and both have convictions. 

Rejection has reasons for first two denials, no employment history, no proof of notification to city, and no proof of financing.    Defendant charged her $1100, plaintiff claims she paid defendant $1300 cash, but no receipt.   

Plaintiff's spouse actually has a felony, but that was made a lesser charge somehow. 

Plaintiff is a total liar, and I don't think that's the defendant's fault. 

Plaintiff gets $1100, $240, and $150, adding up to $1490.

Case 3-Plaintiff says she loaned her ex money, and he won't pay her back.  $455 to plaintiff

[rcc]

6 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

New, "Customer Crisis"

Case 1-Plaintiff bought Sea Moss (the dried mossy stuff in a ziploc bag, not the stuff in a jar that was on Shark Tank last Friday) and when it finally arrived, after a complaint to Pay Pal about non-delivery, it looked nastier than a competitor product.   Defendant has the Covid/hospital excuse, but I agree with plaintiff, it doesn't look like Sea Moss.   Plaintiff claims what he sent her is old, and expired.   This lawsuit is over $30 worth of product.  

Plaintiff gets her refund.

Case 2-Plaintiff had her applications for a liquor license for her bar denied twice, and hired the defendant to do her application, for $2140.   Defendant says plaintiff lied about her past, and that's why her applications were rejected, and for the third time when defendant did her application for her.    Turns out plaintiff lied about her criminal record, and her spouse's criminal records on the question about convictions for misdemeanors or felonys, and both have convictions. 

Rejection has reasons for first two denials, no employment history, no proof of notification to city, and no proof of financing.    Defendant charged her $1100, plaintiff claims she paid defendant $1300 cash, but no receipt.   

Plaintiff's spouse actually has a felony, but that was made a lesser charge somehow. 

Plaintiff is a total liar, and I don't think that's the defendant's fault. 

Plaintiff gets $1100, $240, and $150, adding up to $1490.

Case 3-Plaintiff says she loaned her ex money, and he won't pay her back.  $455 to plaintiff

First case boring. I agree plaintiff lied in second case and should not have received anything. Last case was the usual deadbeat and selfish boyfriend. 

[AngelaHunter]

13 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 1-Plaintiff bought Sea Moss

Never heard of this stuff, although I do love dulse and buy it every time I'm in the Maritimes, but P loves it ("It has 92 of the 102 vitamins and minerals you need every day" or something like that)and D clown confused me with his COVID excuse, since he says 'We', so couldn't someone else in his company deal with the P's complaints or was he using the royal "We" and referring only to himself? Yet another one who brings recorded evidence that hurts him. Duh.

16 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff had her applications for a liquor license for her bar denied twice,

Liar vs. a kind-of scammer: P really thought no one would find out both she and her hubby have criminal records? Charming couple, I'm sure. However D is the professional who does "hundreds" of these applications every year and he really argued here that even though he knew the liar wouldn't get the permit he uses as an excuse, "Oh, she pressured me so much I had no choice but to send wrong info knowing it would be rejected."?

I'm not surprised the P, someone who says things like, "hadn't did" could not fill out an application correctly, even without the lies.

I couldn't take any more nonsense so skipped the 3rd case.

[rcc]

12 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Never heard of this stuff, although I do love dulse and buy it every time I'm in the Maritimes, but P loves it ("It has 92 of the 102 vitamins and minerals you need every day" or something like that)and D clown confused me with his COVID excuse, since he says 'We', so couldn't someone else in his company deal with the P's complaints or was he using the royal "We" and referring only to himself? Yet another one who brings recorded evidence that hurts him. Duh.

Liar vs. a kind-of scammer: P really thought no one would find out both she and her hubby have criminal records? Charming couple, I'm sure. However D is the professional who does "hundreds" of these applications every year and he really argued here that even though he knew the liar wouldn't get the permit he uses as an excuse, "Oh, she pressured me so much I had no choice but to send wrong info knowing it would be rejected."?

I'm not surprised the P, someone who says things like, "hadn't did" could not fill out an application correctly, even without the lies.

I couldn't take any more nonsense so skipped the 3rd case.

Good idea skipping third case!

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Bickering Over Babysitting" new

Case 1-Plaintiff was babysitting defendant's two kids, and claims defendant is abusive to her kids, doesn't know how to be a mother.  Plaintiff says she's owed $ for babysitting, but defendant says plaintiff is a liar, and isn't owed a penny.  (I'm on pink overload, plaintiff has a light pink zip up sweat suit on, and Defendant has a hot pink top, which matches her hair, and eye shadow).   

Plaintiff says she didn't have to deal with defendant, but during the divorce the restraining order against defendant from the soon-to-be ex-husband was lifted, and defendant was back dealing with her kids.   Plaintiff claims the defendant is horrible to her children.   Texts between the two women are horrible.     JM tells plaintiff if you don't enforce the contract, that you are waiving the charges.   

Unfortunately, the kid's father moved, and they're with defendant a lot of the time.   

Defendant wins on late fees, and charges owed, because plaintiff quit. 

Case 2-Plaintiff hired defendant to install a new dishwasher, and when it was hooked up by defendant it leaked like a sieve.  Defendant says the basement water valve was dripping, plaintiff knew it, said it wasn't that bad of a leak,   and it got worse when the new dishwasher was hooked up. The job cost $1051 ($400 for materials, and the rest for labor), and he was supposed to redo cabinets around the dishwasher too.    Plaintiff didn't have defendant turn on the dishwasher before leaving, and she didn't start it either.  THen, plaintiff paid defendant $130 to fix the leak, and started the dishwasher, and it worked.   Next day plaintiff says her whole kitchen was flooded.  

Plaintiff never had a dishwasher, so I don't see why not having a working dishwasher for one day is worth $500 mental anguish.   

$194 for the two plumbing trips.  

[AngelaHunter]

16 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Texts between the two women are horrible. 

Hardly surprising since these two women are horrible. Oh, and grotesque, nasty and hateful. Def had one hell of a nerve calling anyone else a "hag". With her double chins, clown-coloured hair and fake eyelashes so huge they seemed to be distorting her eyes she has no room to name-call. I'm sure she's a wonderful mom, with the domestic violence, restraining order and all. If D was so horrible to her kids I don't know why P hag never notified CPS? Oh, right. She wouldn't get paid anymore.  It's not fair that kids are subjected to this.

25 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff never had a dishwasher, so I don't see why not having a working dishwasher for one day is worth $500 mental anguish.

For millennials, this IS a catastrophe for 500$ worth of mental anguish. Better toughen up, lady if you suffer anguish over a leak. You ain't seen nothing yet.

The plumber had all his receipts, but not with him here. He left them in a storage locker and couldn't be bothered getting them. I'm guessing he charged her for the GFCI and never bought it.

For my bathroom update I needed a GFCI outlet, and what Def installed was not that, but a 20-amp outlet, IIRC. I accidentally got that and had to go and exchange it.

[DoctorK]

32 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

For my bathroom update I needed a GFCI outlet, and what Def installed was not that, but a 20-amp outlet, IIRC.

Correct on both. A dedicated 120V 20A circuit outlet has a T-slot which a 20A plug will fit. Also as I recall, a 20A outlet is supposed to have only one duplex outlet on the circuit. I don't think a dishwasher needs 20A but code may require that it be on its own dedicated circuit. Providing GFCI protection for a dedicated circuit for the dishwasher best practice would be a GFCI breaker on the breaker panel, not at the dishwasher because reaching under the sink to reset a water tripped GFCI may not be safe. However, some of these details may have changed since I had to deal with them.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Correct on both. A dedicated 120V 20A circuit outlet has a T-slot which a 20A plug will fit.

Thanks. I know little to nothing about electrical devices until I have to traipse back to the store and tell them I screwed up. That's the only way I remember this stuff.

Def said he was just trying to save P money on the outlet but we're talking maybe 18 - 20$ here. Of course if he did that at every place he works on it would add up.

I just read this:

Quote

Not all of the receptacles in kitchens, bathrooms or other required locations need to have a GFCI outlet. Because of the way that the outlets function, only the first receptacle in the line—the one closest to a source of water—must have a circuit interrupter.

I imagine a dishwasher falls in that category...? Surely a plumber would know this?

And why was P trying to charge D for the kit, when she said she never got it with her dishwasher? He had to buy a new kit and that was hardly his fault. I guess her anguish over some messed-up plans and water on the floor got the best of her.

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Friendship Fireworks" new

Case 1-Plaintiff suing her old (now former) friend over a car she bought for defendant, and defendant's incarcerated boyfriend, car was in plaintiff's name, but got repossessed for non-payment.     Plaintiff says defendant had car for a year, and tickets were in plaintiff's name too, and plaintiff says $1300 worth of tickets.   Plaintiff doesn't care about her repo on her name.   

Defendant's story is totally different, her boyfriend was only in jail for a little while, defendant needed extra money for boyfriend's fines and bond.    So, plaintiff financed car, and defendant and boyfriend would sell the car, and put the money towards boyfriend's bail.   Car was $3,000, so it was to rip off for  the finance company.  Defendant says the guy who was putting up the mail, would get the car instead of payment.   Defendant says she never drove the car, or even rode in it once.   Then plaintiff claims defendant drove car off of lot.   

Now defendant claims ex-boyfriend gave plaintiff $1,000, to go to Miami, and have the fat from her stomach, and put in her butt, and ex went along, and paid for the rest on Care credit.   I know this will be heart warming, but defendant's boyfriend beat the case for a potential 25 to life charge (it was a murder case).   Why didn't plaintiff sue the boyfriend?  Answer is because she's a crook, defendant and boyfriend are crooks. 

JM dismisses plaintiff's case on the tickets.  Defendant case dismissed, because it's stupid. (I'm not sure I got everything right in this bizarre case.    I may have left out a character or two, but it's the worst case of unclean hands by both sides I've seen in a long time). 

Case 2-Plaintiff rented apartment from defendant, building was sold, and plaintiff wants her $1,000 security deposit back.  Defendant purchased under a program where she had to move into, and live in the building, so she evicted the plaintiff.   The loan was an FHA loan, and for residential property, not investment.     Plaintiff was given the choice of leaving in two months, but landlord is letting her have 30 days more, for $800.    However, plaintiff did not move out on 1 October.    Who is the defendant kidding about the loan requirements?   They make you sign every part of the loan documents stating it's residential. 

Another case like Case 1, where everyone is doing bad things.    Plaintiff said she would move anywhere in NJ, but Camden (search city-data forum how dangerous is Camden NJ, it's an interesting read).     Plaintiff threatened to stop paying rent, and because of the pandemic eviction moratorium defendant couldn't evict plaintiff for months.  

Plaintiff was a jerk, defendant also was and knows nothing about landlord/tenant laws. 

Plaintiff gets $2,000, double the security deposit, because defendant didn't follow the landlord/tenant rules about notifying tenant why they were keeping the security deposit. 

Edited May 30, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

18 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 1-Plaintiff suing her old (now former) friend over a car she bought for defendant, and defendant's incarcerated boyfriend, car was in plaintiff's name, but got repossessed for non-payment.

Maybe I couldn't follow this convoluted, silly story (my mind was preoccupied with "WHERE THE HELL DID I PUT MY CAR KEYS???) but I did enjoy seeing clowns who were actually funny for once. The more they said (in brutally fractured English), the funnier it got. 😄 I guess I should be more respectful for the way people choose to live their lives but I'm a horrible person.

I don't know if Delano or Primo wanted Teneca to buy a car so he or she could sell it right away (without a title) to bail out Delano or Primo (who was looking at 25 years to life) but P says one of them told her to buy a car in her name so of course, she did it. I'm sure I'd do the same for MY murderous jailbird loverboy.

As always, I also enjoyed hearing JM reading a text as it was written: "He gon do it wen he get in."

And then Primo or Delano paid for Teneca to get  her"body done" - fat sucked out of her gut and injected into her ass - prompting JM to opine she's rather get the fat sucked out of her ass. Douglas cracks up.  I agree, JM, but you haven't been paying attention or you would know that grotesquely inflated buttocks are very trendy. You too can buy a butt and look just like one of the Kardashians! As great as all this was I couldn't take any more of it but thanks for the laughs, "ladies". May you and your incarcerated boyfriends live happily ever after!

37 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff was a jerk, defendant also was and knows nothing about landlord/tenant laws. 

Yes to both. It annoyed me the way D - who bore an uncanny resemblance to Rami Malek - tried to say she had no idea that this government loan or rebate (?) for buying this house stipulated that she must live in it and not use it for a profit-making business. JM didn't buy that either. D is a teacher. She read the forms. Don't play dumb and don't say you couldn't look up tenant/landlord laws and claim here, "I didn't know anything!" IMO, she knew exactly what she was doing.

I was curious about Camden being the most dangerous city in the US. Turns out it's only  at No.14 for dangerousness at the moment:

Quote

At number 14 of the top 100 most dangerous cities in the country, Camden has a Violent Crime Rate of 16.5 per 1,000 residents. In plain talk, that means your chance of being a victim of a violent crime in Camden is a frightening 1 in 61.

Yikes. Although I, like the P, come from a "humble background" I don't think I'd choose to live there either.

[CrazyInAlabama]

New "Kidnapping a Cat"

Case 1-Plaintiffs want the cat back, and are suing defendant for $4151.73, for cat and hotel expenses ($912).   Plaintiff woman, and defendant used to date, they got a total of five cats together, including Finn.   So, when they split, Gia (woman plaintiff) took Finn with her, to California, living at her mother's, then went back to Florida with Finn.    Hotel expenses were five days, blamed on defendant's refusal to give back cat (no, I don't understand this anyway, but woman plaintiff claims the trip wasn't to visit her family, but just to get cat).

However, when Gia went back to Florida with Finn, they didn't get back together, and Gia's mother said no Finn at her place, and so plaintiff Gia left Finn with defendant.      Plaintiff woman moved to Pennsylvania, with plaintiff man, who is now her partner, and wants her cat back.   (Harvey is so thrilled about plaintiff woman and plaintiff man having a relationship, after defendant and plaintiff woman were formerly in a relationship). 

Then, when plaintiff woman wanted to pick up cat, defendant finally said it's been two years, cat is bonded to her other cat, and she's not giving cat back.     Why doesn't plaintiff get another cat?    I could find a dozen she could have with very little notice, including a few that look like Finn.  Give me a can of cat food, and a few cat carriers, and you can have your choice from the neighborhood next door.   

Defendant says they split, and left cat Finn with her, she paid the bills for two years, and won't give the cat back.  Plaintiffs were in Pennsylvania, and went for the five nights to various locations, that have nothing to do with the cat, but just where her family lives.    Plaintiff claims cat hasn't been to the vet in two years, defendant claims cat has been to the vet, and has been fully vaccinated. 

Cat stays with defendant.   However, JM says plaintiff did take her cat, and plaintiffs want $3,000 for a cat, cat value is the $20 he was purchased for.   Plus, JM will give them cat trip travel expenses.   So, $805 hotels, plus $130 for gas, and cat $100, totals $1035. (I wouldn't have paid plaintiffs a penny).  I'm sorry, the plaintiffs had a vacation, were only going to pick up the cat as a side trip, and didn't even go to Jacksonville, so I would have given them $20 for the cat, and that's all.  

Case 2-Plaintiff lived in defendant's apartment for five years, and was told to leave.   Plaintiff wants $950 for double the security back.   Defendant claims plaintiff changed the master lock, locking defendant out of her own property. 

 Plaintiff had roommates/tenants, but wasn't allowed to, and starts calling them neighbors, and claims she wasn't compensated for keeping these people out.   Defendant claims she lived in the apartment long enough that she could change the locks to keep other tenants out, and defendant never caught anyone in the apartment.    Nothing was in writing from plaintiff.   So, plaintiff was renting rooms, and when she wanted someone out, she just changed the locks? 

Defendant says there was nothing wrong with the current lock, and when plaintiff left the pot on the stove, defendant had to break the door in to turn the stove off.    Defendant's a lawyer, and they don't do well on this show.   There are no photos of the damages, phone dropped or something, or other damages.  There is no evidence presented by lawyer defendant to back up the damage charges, so I'm guessing JM will give plaintiff everything she wants. 

Plaintiff expected landlord to change a light bulb, it was an eight foot ceiling, even I can change that easily.    Landlords don't change light bulbs.   

Defendant told plaintiff she wasn't renewing the lease, and after plaintiff moved out, defendant says plaintiff left the stove going, and it was smoking, since plaintiff changed the lock, and defendant didn't have a key, they had to break down the door to stop the smoking stove.   Plaintiff admits she left a pot on the stove, that was smoking, so landlord was called to get into the apartment. 

However, JM says defendant did send the notice in time, but has no photos of damages to back that up.   Plaintiff won't get double damages, but I suspect she'll get her security back.   Defendant didn't do this right. I'm just glad that plaintiff moved out.   Plaintiff already got $75 back out of $475 security. 

Plaintiff gets $375.     Security was $475, plaintiff has a valid check for $75, and has to pay $100 for locks, so she should get $300. 

Edited May 31, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

32 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff lived in defendant's apartment for five years, and was told to leave. 

We had the usual destructive tenant who nearly burns the place down and who claims holes in the wall are "natural", (I assume she she means they aren't gaping so what's the problem?) ranting on so incoherently that JM really has no clue what she's talking about. P mentions her "tenants" and changes it to the neighbours who were stealing her stuff when she realizes she wasn't allowed to rent out portions of her apartment. Strangely, I've never accidentally called MY neighbours my "tenants". Oh, well.

We also had the usual lawyer of the type we always see on court shows.

This one flips her hair around and pouts in a manner she seems to think is fetching (it SO is not) while explaining that she has no evidence of anything. Does she need such a thing? I used to be shocked at lawyers who didn't know this, or didn't know they needed to keep records of payments and expenses, but I expect this now. To add insult to injury this so-called lawyer tells JM that her daughter dropped her (D's) phone in the bathtub and the dog ate her homework and she'd never dream of saving pics of damage and she might have evidence lying around somewhere if she has time to hunt for it but probably not.

I still haven't figured out why anyone wants to be a landlord.

Levin: "It's the case of Goldilocks, as in I want some gold for the locks". What an utter jackass.

I bet in ancient times when Levin was a lawyer, he was just like the ones we see here.

Edited May 31, 2022 by AngelaHunter

[rcc]

First case with the cat plaintiffs were awarded too much money. JM was right to leave cat with defendant. Second case had a plaintiff who was obviously lying about her "neighbors" and how she left apt. But defendant didn't prepare for case and tried to be sexy. Much like Sunny Hostin on The View that I no longer watch. Same kind of lawyer to get the judge to rule in her favor. Didn't work with JM.  Might have with Judge John though. Lol.

[Pepper the Cat]

I think I am in love with Flynn. I loved how he was having a wash in the background at one point. Like “ oh, I am on national TV. Let’s make sure my private parts are clean”

[AngelaHunter]

12 hours ago, Pepper the Cat said:

I think I am in love with Flynn. I loved how he was having a wash in the background at one point. Like “ oh, I am on national TV. Let’s make sure my private parts are clean”

I FF'd the first case at warp speed but I might go back because this I have to see. Here I thought it was bad when brother Lloyd fired up a butt and another litigant answered a phone while talking to JM.

[CrazyInAlabama]

New, "Suing Your Stepmother"  (Another family to mark off the list of people you want to go to Thanksgiving dinner with, unless you wear a helmet, and carry a riot shield. 

Case 1-Plaintiff Sachi, suing stepmother, because stepmother told the court that plaintiff wasn't her father's child.    Defendant says she saw the plaintiff's birth certificate, and the name on there was the plaintiff's uncle, not defendant's husband.    This was not matched by a certified copy of the official birth certificate.   However, the official copy of the birth certificate was done from a form that's filled out by the parents, so who knows what the truth is?          Plaintiff says stepmother cheated her out of her inheritance, but plaintiff already split the bank account with the sisters, so how much money was left?   ALso, since the parents were apparently still married, daughters were not the heir to the estate, the wife/stepmother was.        

Plaintiff's father died, claims stepmother never told her father was sick, also the plaintiff's older sister didn't tell her either.  Not very close of a family, if youngest didn't even know her father was sick.    And how is defendant stepmother to her husband's youngest?    Or did late husband have a couple of kids with defendant, the older two, then either he or his brother fathered the youngest, the plaintiff, and then stepmother and late husband married>   

All three daughters were beneficiaries on the bank accounts, so they split the account. but after that defendant was named executor, There is a list of heirs, and a notice to heirs.   Defendant stepmother (she's mother of first two, older daughters I think, so not sure how defendant was legal spouse, when the youngest daughter, plaintiff was the stepdaughter).        Plaintiff sent her birth certificate to estate lawyer's office, and plaintiff had ordered this from Vital Statistics, and it matched what daughter/plaintiff claims the birth certificate should look like.   

(My theory, what stepmother saw was the hospital certificate, or an application for birth certificate, and the names on the application.  Then the application for birth certificate that was sent in for recording was changed to plaintiff's late father, and stepmother's husband).   

JM starts screaming again.    Dismisses everything.   JM keeps yelling that plaintiff's father is the man on the birth certificate.    

Case 2-Plaintiff sold a cord of wood to defendant, and defendant tried to return the wood for a refund, because it smoked and wasn't cured right, and wants $350 for the wood.   Defendant says wood was advertising dried, seasoned firewood, and the wood wasn't.     The wood was mean for furnaces, and needed to be split for a fireplace.   Plaintiff is right, this isn't fireplace wood, but furnace wood.   

The reason the defendant doesn't want the wood, is because he doesn't want to have it split.    The ad says the size of the wood.    I'm betting plaintiff will find another buyer for the wood.   

Plaintiff loses, and has 72 hours to pick up the wood.    

Case 3- Plaintiff gave his granddaughter a cell phone, and wants $275 for the phone when defendant stomped on the phone.    Defendant claims his older daughter dropped and broke the phone.   Defendant says his fiance died, and he's being blamed for that by the relatives, including plaintiff. (defendant was fiance of plaintiff's stepdaughter, and defendants two daughters were the stepgranddaughters of plaintiff.)      There is no proof how the granddaughter's phone broke.    Also, who does JM think she is, lecturing a man who lost the mother of his kids, that he doesn't understand what the stepgrandfather is going through. 

Case dismissed. 

Edited June 2, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[patty1h]

"Suing Your Stepmother"  This may seem cold hearted, but I was sick of Sachi's dramatics over her deceased father after 5 minutes.  Her case sounded flimsy to frivolous at the start - $5K for defamation because her stepmother said that her birth certificate was possibly fake.  She was losing nothing in the probate case, and she seemed more broken up that she was not notified of her fathers cancer diagnosis earlier -- I think she was more betrayed by that and turned it into a major drama.   I think Sachi mumbled "they're coming for you" to stepmom at the end of the case... seems she's committed to being big mad.

The stepmother was hard to read - not sure if she was malicious or decided that she wanted to be transparent in front of a judge.    I think JM tried really hard to drum it into Sachi's head that she should have no more doubts about her dad, but she seemed to just be mad at stepmom for some earlier crap that happened between them.   Those two are a lost cause.

[AngelaHunter]

2 minutes ago, patty1h said:

This may seem cold hearted, but I was sick of Sachi's dramatics over her deceased father after 5 minutes.

I guess  my heart is cold too. I couldn't take the screaming, crying, carefully wiping tears away with the backs of fingers to avoid impaling eyeball with huge fake daggers, mini-autobiography and all that crap. I did find it odd that P, who was the "baby" and presumably loved her daddy, never noticed or knew how sick he was. Anyway, all her grief and hurt feelings are worth exactly 5K, it seems. She can take comfort in that JM thought she was beautiful.

7 minutes ago, patty1h said:

I think Sachi mumbled "they're coming for you" to stepmom at the end of the case...

I didn't hear that, but did hear, "It's on". It seems JM wasted her breath again and I think stepmother should move.

17 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff sold a cord of wood to defendant

I found this much more interesting, since I have a combustion stove and we've been buying wood for it for many years. I have no idea about the "wood furnace" P was talking about, unless he actually did mean 'wood stove'. Anyway, our orders of wood always had  a lot of logs that to be cut to length and split by us, for which we would rent a splitter after we got tired of doing it with an axe. If you want it all cut to certain lengths and already split you'll pay a lot more, naturally.

Def didn't need to throw the wood away. He could have stacked it and used it in winters to come, if indeed it wasn't dry enough. It looked pretty good to me in the pic, but maybe it wasn't.

[rcc]

Screwed up families all cases. The "baby" sues for $5,000 because she loved her daddy. How about daddy leaving a will so this wouldn't happen. Second case the wood was corded by son and dad had to pay him $200. How about not charging for helping out father. Third case how about dear old dad buying his daughter a cellphone. Not attacking father-in-law who did. Oh wait they weren' t actually married.

Edited June 1, 2022 by rcc

[AZChristian]

More and more often, I come here to ready the synopses of the cases before it airs here in Arizona. 

And more and more often, I delete them without watching.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

And more and more often, I delete them without watching.

I find I'm skipping a lot of them, like the third case today involving the smashed phone. I got as far as stepdaddy or whoever he was, CSI'ing that if he had stomped on the phone the damage would a lot worse. Maybe he knows this from experience? I was done.

[Bazinga]

Case 1 - Nobody is going to mention the plaintiff repeatedly saying "affidata" instead of affidavit, even after being corrected,  or "state attorney" in place of estate attorney?

I dislike JM catering to/consoling/coddling certain litigants.  No, plaintiff wasn't beautiful and wasn't deserving of any special treatment or encouragement as she was not a victim.  The stepmother said something she didn't like/was probably false about the "baby of the family" (plaintiff was way too old to repeatedly describe herself as the baby,  IMO) that had no effect on anything.

Case 2 - Buyer has no proof the wood was bad but since he obtained replacement wood, he must be right that the wood was bad.  Seems like a rather circular argument.  Isn't that true in many cases, that the plaintiff is dissatisfied and hires someone else to do the job, brought the car to another mechanic, buys anther dress, takes the hair extensions out, buys pizza for the catered party, etc?  The act of obtaining a replacement or additional product in and of itself is not proof that the original goods or service was not up to standards, just that the complaining party was dissatisfied.  IMO, JM just decided on her own that the wood was not good/what was being offered in the ad, so the buyer prevailed.

Case 3 -  The cellphone was a gift to the step (but I don't call her step) granddaughter.  Therefore, as the plaintiff did not own it once he gave it to the granddaughter, he has no standing to sue for damages to the phone that he no longer owned; the granddaughter was the proper party and if she was a minor, her guardian, I assume the defendant, would be the party to sue in her stead.  I know plaintiff lost because he had no proof beyond a theory and double hearsay, but he should never have been allowed to proceed.  Did JM miss this or just ignore it so that the case could proceed?  It bothered me throughout the whole case.  I also did not like that the plaintiff, because of his age, was given much more deference than his case or story deserved. 

Did not enjoy these three cases.

I also do not enjoy some litigants being allowed to monologue their whole backstories, their sob stories of victimhood and saintliness. 

Nor do I enjoy the judges' responses to questions asked about their personal lives and experiences.  They often come off nasty, smug, full of themselves and elitist.  Especially Judge Milan.

Edited June 2, 2022 by Bazinga

[CrazyInAlabama]

New, "Nasty Neighbor"

Case 1-Plaintiff says defendants/upstairs neighbors,  used regular dish soap in their dishwasher, and the leaking dishwasher cause a lot of electronics and other damages in plaintiff's apartment.    Plaintiff wants $2500 for damages (total damages were $3,000).   WHen plaintiff saw the water pouring from his kitchen ceiling, and went upstairs to the neighbor's apartment, and the dishwasher was still running until plaintiff told them to turn the dishwasher off.  JM is already siding with the defendants.  

Plaintiff says damages were two wireless cameras, and other items, but plaintiff has no proof. 

Defendant wins.  Plaintiff didn't have receipts, but I don't think that would have made a difference. 

As Angela Hunter says, the same plaintiff was suing the HOA president on Judge Judy, on the 26 May episode.   Good catch!  I put the case below.   So, is this the same apartment, or condo?   Plaintiff kept talking about his condo in the JJ case, but apartment in this one.     And a BMW lawsuit found by Angela Hunter, from 2012, he lost that one too.

Case 2-Plaintiff claims drunk defendant jumped into his truck and crashed it.   Defendant says plaintiff let her drive his truck, claims they were both drinking, and she didn't see any damages to his raggedy janky truck.    Defendant claims after she crashed the truck, that her mysteriously car caught on fire, she had threats made to her also. 

Plaintiff says he got out of his truck to smoke a cigarette, leaving his lovely date in the truck, she slid over to drivers seat, took off, ran over a parked electronic bike, ran over a stop sign, and crashed his truck.     Defendant sent $800 to plaintiff, and he sent it to the e-bike owner, and $200 worth of weed.    Then, when JM looks at the picture albums of damages to the truck, naked pictures of litigants appear, and not only is she grossed out, but poor Douglas looks like he's going to start rolling on the floor laughing.   Damages were $5,000, but plaintiff's only suing for $2500.    Litigants were still dating for a while after the car accident. 

Plaintiff gets $2,000. 

Case 3-Plaintiff signed a lease with her boyfriend for an apartment.   They never moved in because of the no pet policy, and she wants $2,500.    Defendant says plaintiff only told landlord she was getting a dog, and landlord said no.    Defendant is an apartment broker, and says he found the apartment, so he's not paying the finder's fee back to plaintiff.   

Plaintiff claims the pet policy never came up during the lease signing.  Plaintiff and boyfriend signed the lease.   Her mother wants plaintiff to baby sit her mother's dog.   Landlord returned first month, security, and parking fee.   Then plaintiff called the broker/defendant and wants the finder's commission of $2100.  

Defendant /broker says he puts No Pets, or Pets allowed, or size or number limits of dogs.  

Plaintiff looses. 

Here's the JJ case:

HOA President Accused of Leaks, and Lies-Plaintiff Sam Salemnia suing HOA President Stuart Schlig for lying about damage to plaintiff's condo (first floor apartment) from upstairs neighbor's (third floor apartment) plumbing issues.  Mr. Schlig owns the third floor condo.    Plaintiff has two videos showing proof of the leaks from the third floor, passing through the second floor unit, and the plaintiff's first floor unit.   

Defendant is not only the condo owner, but is the HOA president, and also owns the management company, so it's a total conflict of interest.    Plaintiff's apartment was repaired by insurance, there were added items that defendant would pay out of pocket for.   Then, an additional leak happened from the defendant's apartment (washing machine drain line leaked, again).   

This apartment/condo building is about 45 years old, there was asbestos, and the pipes with leaks look like galvanized.    Part of the additional work was asbestos removal in the common area (hallway).     Defendant still says plaintiff is a liar and a crook. 

In the hall-terview, defendant still claims plaintiff is a liar, and a crook, and claims his condo pipes don't leak.   Defendant keeps saying the leak isn't in his condo.   

Plaintiff receives $2800. 

Edited June 3, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

9 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

New, "Nasty Neighbor"

I think I keep watching this show for the same reason people in Vegas keep pulling those handles - random rewards.

Mr. Salemnia was on Judge Judy.

He was suing the HOA president for... water damage in his place caused by a leak in the president's unit.

In that case, he had some evidence with both photos and video and got what he was seeking, which IIRC, was 5K.

Perhaps he thought, "It worked once. Let's try again."  Sadly for him, he overreached by trying to claim thousands of dollars worth of electronics which were all directly under the leak from the D's dishwasher, and all got damaged. Maybe he was still feeling cocky from his win on JJ, so didn't feel the need to provide any proof at all. He shouldn't have to! He's a salesman and thinks he's a good talker, so take his word for it. Don't think so. Maybe try something other than leaks next time, Salemnia.

15 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff claims drunk defendant jumped into his truck and crashed it. 

Is telling a judge, "I trade weed to cover my debts" a good idea? I guess so. The you was and we was and the screaming, rachet def, with her missing tooth were unbearable, but when JM nearly gagged looking at the vile "explicited"naked pics (I always delete my naked porno pics before showing my phone to a judge on national TeeVee) I bailed. As our dear Levin would say, "Yuck".

18 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 3-Plaintiff signed a lease with her boyfriend for an apartment.

We had an air-headed, dingbat, millennial snowflake with the usual "it's not my fault" snese of entitlement. Sure, she signed a lease that said "No pets" but only after Mommy said, "You have to take care of my dog when I travel" did she realize she better not move there, so tells the landlord, "Oops, I changed my mind" and asks him to "void" the lease she signed and he very generously gave her back her deposit, first month's rent and all that.

That's not enough for her. She wants the broker who found the apartment for her to give her back her 2100$ fee to him, even though he did what he was paid to do, and SHE broke the agreement. He was actually going to do it until the little twerp started threatening him with legal action because he didn't refund her quickly enough, so then he told her to pound sand. Sorry, Snowflake - the world is not your mommy to overlook your mistakes. Hopefully she learned something.

[AngelaHunter]

Mr. Sam Salemnia seems to supplement his income by suing people:

https://unicourt.com/case/ca-la1-sam-salemnia-vs-bob-khakshooy-1389209

Seems he also sued BMW.

https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2ukvmwg5l/superior-court-of-california-county-of-los-angeles/sam-salemnia-v-bmw-of-north-america-llc/

[CrazyInAlabama]

New, "Stiffing a Former Boyfriend"

Case 1-Love birds for the ages.  Defendant was spending the night, wanted $800 for a car, and the next morning, she found $800 on the table, and took it.    After they broke up, plaintiff wanted his $800 back, since he now claims it was a loan. 

(Doug stumbled on JM's first name, and my closed captions caught it.)   

Defendant had a car wreck, and then was knocked up, and wanted the $800 for another car.  Plaintiff claims she was going to send him the $800 from her insurance settlement.  Defendant claims they were still together, so she doesn't owe him the money.   Defendant seems to think sleeping with her is worth $800, and says they had an 'arrangement'.   JM actually asks defendant if the $800 was payment for her 'services'.   

Defendant wants her Gucci backpack and a ring back, and plaintiff says this is all retaliation from her getting a new boyfriend.   

Plaintiff gets $800, and defendant will get her backpack and ring back .  

Case 2-Plaintiff  suing defendants/former landlords for return of his security deposit.  Plaintiff claims he shut off the lawn sprinklers because they watered the driveway, and he was trying to conserve water.  Defendants say he was the first renter in the remodeled house, lawn maintenance was included in the lease, and defendants claim the lawn is severely damaged.    Plaintiff claims he told the defendants about the lawn sprinklers, but they never did anything, so he turned the water to the sprinklers off.    Plaintiff still wants his security deposit back, claiming the house was a wreck, the defendants were bad landlords, and he did the right thing turning the water off. 

There are move in pictures showing a lovely, green lawn.  Move out pictures of the former lawn are horrible.  Defendants claim the gardeners correct the aim on the sprinkler heads, and they don't need to go to fix it themselves.  Defendants claim lawn damages $ , and bathroom tiles broken by a spring rod-(I've used spring rods, and they down destroy the tile).   I don't know how this ended, thunderstorms mean everything gets turned off. 

[AngelaHunter]

9 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 1-Love birds for the ages.

I had a failed root canal done today, so excuse me for being a little cranky.

More of these sordid, hypersexual litigants did not help my mood. Def, in spite of her ghastly, masculine appearance, seems to have no trouble attracting sex partners and thinks her hiney is worth 800$ a pop. Wow. Of course, the calibre of her loverboys might not be everyone's cup of tea. I just love litigants who mention getting pregnant the way I might say, "I caught a cold". Def: "I got sick... well, I got pregnant too." *shrug*  as though bringing a life into the world is barely worth mentioning.  She's screaming about sex and I just couldn't continue. Ugh.

16 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff  suing defendants/former landlords for return of his security deposit. 

I really didn't care about the lawn. The Smiths paid over 200,000$ just to live in Def's place, yet money-grubbing Defs are squawking over a couple of dents in a wooden door frame where P used a chin-up tension rod (I think that's what it's called), and two broken, cheap tiles that probably cost 0.99 each. Apparently Defs don't watch this show and remain totally oblivious to the kind of damage tenants are capable of. IIRC P got back some 1800$ from the skinflints.

In the last case, Mr. Dodd (who looks like a "nerd" character actor in an old sit-com) is suing def for all the damage resulting from Def rear-ending him at a red light Mr. Dodd is including some 3K  for the ol' pain and suffering because he couldn't sleep for 10 nights due to back pain from this accident. He's a 50-year-old man and he states that he feels a good night's sleep is worth at least 500$/night. He also wants to be compensated for a rental car, even though he never rented a truck or car...?

JM wants proof his back was injured. Well, he never went to a doctor, since he didn't want to pay one if he wasn't going to be compensated 3K for an X-ray so he has zero proof of anything, not even a prescription for pain medication. Amazing that while staying awake 24/7 for all those days and in terrible pain he was still able to work, using his other vehicle

Def's insurance offered him money for his damages, but he turned it down, thinking he could clean up here. JM tells him he should have accepted it because Surprise! Not a penny for you, Mr. Dodd.

Levin:"It's the case of "You're a pain in my rear end". Levin, please get over this fetish you have about rear ends, you gross old troll.

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I had a failed root canal done today, so excuse me for being a little cranky 

You’re entitled.  Feel better. 

38 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

More of these sordid, hypersexual litigants did not help my mood. Def, in spite of her ghastly, masculine appearance, seems to have no trouble attracting sex partners and thinks her hiney is worth 800$ a pop.

Ghastly about covers it. Nose rings skeeve me out and hers was a dandy.  
I swear to you that the sight of those two turned my stomach a bit.  The words penicillin, oozing sores and government testing all popped in my head.  During lunch.

38 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I really didn't care about the lawn. 

Neither did I. That’s why I started a continuing Ed course online.  Abusive Partners. How’s that for irony?

Sometimes television does mirror life  

[AngelaHunter]

6 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

That’s why I started a continuing Ed course online.  Abusive Partners. How’s that for irony?

If you watch this show I gather your course is kind of like a busman's holiday? Fortitude - you gotz it.

7 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Nose rings skeeve me out and hers was a dandy.  

With everything else going on with these two I admit I never noticed it. Nose rings always put me in mind of truffle-sniffing pigs but obviously some see them as hot 'n sexy, so it's probably just me.

10 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

The words penicillin, oozing sores and government testing all popped in my head.  During lunch.

Ew. I don't know if she squirted out this poor, unfortunate baby. I couldn't stick with the case long enough to find out if the "SSM" claim was utilized as a sympathy defense.

12 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

You’re entitled.  Feel better. 

Thank you. The good part was that after the dentist jabbed me with a multitude of needles and spent 30 minutes drilling and digging and then declaring a failure she charged me not a cent. That warmed the cockles of my penny-pinching heart. Once upon a time my news used to be so much more interesting, I swear.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Thank you. The good part was that after the dentist jabbed me with a multitude of needles and spent 30 minutes drilling and digging and then declaring a failure she charged me not a cent. That warmed the cockles of my penny-pinching heart. Once upon a time my news used to be so much more interesting, I swear.

Aw. I hear you. 

Last week I made an appointment for a cortisone shot in my right knee. I aggravated it on vacation. Got there and the spacey PA said “we don’t do cortisone shots here”.  I said that it would be nice if the receptionist told me before I drove here.  Her response?  “We won’t charge you for an office visit”!  She did nothing and wants my gratitude for not charging for doing nothing. 

At least your dentist did some invasive stuff to warrant your gratitude. 

My coworker said I should charge them for gasoline to get to the useless appointment.  I’m thinking about it. 

What’s that number for TPC?  
 

[AngelaHunter]

30 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Her response?  “We won’t charge you for an office visit”!  She did nothing and wants my gratitude for not charging for doing nothing. 

Wow. Thanks for nothing. That reminds me of last week, when I was roused out of bed by the doorbell. It was a service tech from my internet provider saying he was there to fix the problem at my request. I told him I requested nothing and when he read out the service call  - branches breaking a wire - I told him that was a problem I had about seven years ago!

Knowing my ruthless provider, I called to make sure they knew I never asked for the visit. Some woman said "We won't charge you for this." Gee, thanks, you idiots. I couldn't bring myself to say "Thank you" for this non-courtesy but merely said, "I should hope not!"

I'm pretty sure I can sue my dentist for the fruitless suffering I endured and the sleepless night that proceeded it. After all, my sleep is worth at least 500$. Don't you bitches snark at me as I sit in my decrepit garage in full makeup and fake talons, whining to JM about my mental anguish and time wasted.

[DoctorK]

18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Don't you bitches snark at me as I sit in my decrepit garage in full makeup and fake talons, whining to JM about my mental anguish and time wasted.

If you are going to take this to court (real or TV court), take time to get knocked up so you can do the Sainted Single Mother routine (if you have triplets, even better). First choice should be Hot Bench, just whine and cry to Corriero and you will be all set (but watch out for Di Mango, she isn't as much of a bleeding heart judge).

19 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Once upon a time my news used to be so much more interesting, I swear.

Same here, but I am at the point in life when no drama and very little excitement is a good thing. I started to think that way about the same time I started paying more attention to my digestive system than to my reproductive system (yeah, I am that old).

Edited June 4, 2022 by DoctorK

[CrazyInAlabama]

Remember, the next season of Hot Bench will be only Corriero, and who ever they replace the two other judges with.   The two other judges are going to their own show, so there may be chances to make your own mark on TV court history, as the first show litigant, and there's JJ's new show on the same network.    Besides, JM seems too out of control in her decisions, and her screaming at everyone.   

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

If you are going to take this to court (real or TV court), take time to get knocked up so you can do the Sainted Single Mother routine (if you have triplets, even better).

Yes, for sure and the sire of my Blessed Event(s) will be some clueless teenager who I'm suing after he promised to take care of me. Papa Mike will surely sympathize.

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Same here, but I am at the point in life when no drama and very little excitement is a good thing.

You betcha! I'm so pathetic and my life so mundane my biggest dramas in ages was getting my bathroom redone and a root canal gone wrong. 😆

11 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

the next season of Hot Bench will be only Corriero

I'll pass on this. I watch these shows to see miscreants get their comeuppance.

12 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

and there's JJ's new show on the same network.   

Nope. Haven't watched one second of this. It's my way of protesting our Byrd being dumped so rudely. Yeah, I'm sure JJ cares what I "feel"!