The People's Court - General Discussion

[rcc]

The only court show I watch is People's Court. Can't take any other show. Lol

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

. . . protesting our Byrd being dumped so rudely. Yeah, I'm sure JJ cares what I "feel"!

If I'm not mistaken, Byrd will be on the new show with the two female HB judges and a 3rd judge - who just so happens to be JJ's son.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I'm sure JJ's company will replace the judges leaving Hot Bench.    My suspicion is that a lot of litigants made up everything, and they litigants only want TV money, and what passes for fame.       Like the ones on TPC who claim to have all of these expenses, but not receipts.    

They list new episodes all week.   I wonder if TPC is trying to get viewership up, and hope to get better time slots, and more money from advertisers.    There are a lot of vacancies on the court and other shows, and I hope the stations don't switch to more talk shows.   

Monday 6 June, new

"Furious With Your Father"

Case 1-Plaintiff daughter blew out her transmission, and took it to defendant father to fix it, he did a bad job, and she can't believe she's having to sue him for the failed repair.   Defendant claims he spent $800 on parts to fix the transmission.  

The estranged father had the car for almost two years.   Then, he spent $1300 on another car for daughter, and she wrecked that one too.     Daughter also threatened to break the windows out of defendant's own car, customer cars, and after she said his car was going to get scratched, it was.  

Defendant has no proof of the $1300, so Princess Cranky Pants gets her $800 back. 

Case 2-Plaintiff hired defendant to do extensions in her hair, they lasted 6 hours and fell out.   She's suing for $252.     

Defendant says plaintiff never gave her a chance to fix the extension issue, and then plaintiff blasted her on social media.    Defendant said she couldn't reuse the hair anyway, it's unsanitary.  

News flash!-Apparently, they're microextensions!   (I as usual have no clue about why that's important.   I'm not that knowledgeable about hair stuff. )   

I wonder what the instructions from defendant were about care of the extensions?  

Another part of this, is plaintiff was a model for something, and only paid for the hair.    

Plaintiff gets $252.

Edited June 7, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

On 6/4/2022 at 8:26 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Furious With Your Father"

I love when parents steal from their kids. I was waiting for JM to ask Daddy how much child support he paid for his kid(s), but she never did. His "I brung" and "we was" and "had went" were very irritating so I was pleasantly surprised that the daughter who said she was going to school could speak so well. How unusual. Most of the students we see here speak like Daddy. Sure, he has evidence of how much he spent, but it's all in the hands of his accountant and he was unable to ask for copies. Okay.

Daughter needs to learn not to act like a gutter rat. Screaming and threatening to vandalize property is pretty rank and won't take her very far in life. I hope she continues her education and absorbs how civilized people behave when they are in disputes about costs.

On 6/4/2022 at 8:26 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff hired defendant to do extensions in her hair, they lasted 6 hours and fell out.

Nope. No, thanks.

On 6/4/2022 at 8:26 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Another part of this, is plaintiff was a model for something

A hair ambassador? Never mind. I don't want to know.

[rcc]

I thought about the child support in the first case too. Stolen rims for her car. Accountant. Never been in court. What a liar! She needs to forget about her father. Disrespected he is. Have to earn respect! 

Hate all hair cases. Do not watch.

Edited June 6, 2022 by rcc

[AngelaHunter]

22 minutes ago, rcc said:

I thought about the child support in the first case too. Stolen rims for her car. Accountant. Never been in court. What a liar! She needs to forget about her father. Disrespected he is. Have to earn respect! 

Hate all hair cases. Do not watch.

Agree. I bet when asked for child support  it was 'Next week...next month...I got some money coming..blah blah." That's just the impression I got. I could be totally wrong.

He first said he'd never been in court concerning his business. When JM questioned that he changed it it 'never'. I have my doubts.

I guess he feels his behavior is deserving of respect.

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Raging About a Rug" new, 

Case 1-Plaintiff hired to clean defendant's area, say rug cleaned up beautifully, and then defendants stopped payment on the check.   Defendant claims stains are still there, and defendant didn't take enough time for the job, and won't pay the $253 owed the plaintiff.

When plaintiff came to the house, he says the stains on the rug were marked with Post-it notes, and claims the stains all came out very quickly.   Defendant even admits the rug looked good after cleaning, but later his wife said the rug wasn't clean enough. 

Since defendant doesn't have pets, what are the stains?   Defendant blames the stains on grandchildren spilling stuff on the rugs.    Website does say a spotless clean is guaranteed, so my guess is plaintiff is going to lose.   Rug is only 5' x 7'.     However, defendant saw the rug, paid by check, and then stopped payment.   By the way, that rug is hideous.     Those stains on the rug are horrible.   

Plaintiff gets $175 payment, not the $253 he wanted, and will update his website, and contracts about the 'guarantee'.

Case 2-Plaintiff was driving Lyft with a passenger, when defendant's 27 foot box truck ran into him, and he wants $1410 for his deductible, and lost wages.    Defendant claims plaintiff ran into him, he wasn't cited by the police, and owes plaintiff nothing.   

It was a 2 lane driveway, defendant was turning right, but had to straddle the line a little, to make the turn safely.   Then, when defendant was making the right turn, plaintiff went into the right lane, trying to squeeze by to make the same turn.   Police came to the scene, and no citations were given. 

Progressive insurance is plaintiff's company, and they paid for damages to plaintiff's car, and now he wants lost wages, and the deductible.  

(My guess is that when defendant was straddling the line between the two lanes, he was going out for his turn, so he wouldn't cut the corner.   Then, plaintiff thought defendant was going to turn left, so ran up on the right side to make the turn, and that's when he was nailed by the truck).  

There is no proof the accident was defendant's fault, so plaintiff case dismissed.   

Case 3- Plaintiff says defendant slashed her tired when she was at a Buddhism temple, in defendant's neighborhood.   Defendant mixed her car up with someone he had a problem with, and defendant says plaintiff has no proof he's the slasher.   

Defendant admitted to police he slashed the neighbor's company vehicle, but claims he doesn't remember slashing plaintiff's tires.   Plaintiff says she went out to her car and the tire had a big slash in it, and the next door neighbor's company car had some slashed tires too.   

The plaintiff looked at surveillance video, and defendant was the only person coming down the driveway that night.    Defendant says he was going to confront the neighbor about an argument they had.   However, former co-worker wasn't home, so defendant slashed the tires.

The tire dealer had to put a new tire to replace the slashed one,  Then, because of the tread difference the other three tires had to be replaced, which makes sense to me.   JM says the other three tires didn't need to be replaced, in my opinion they did, the tread difference would be crucial for an all wheel drive.   At first, plaintiff said the car was a year old, it was older, but I think she hadn't owned it for the car's entire life.   

 Then, JM asks defendant how many times he's been arrested, or in court and he says 'a handful'.   He actually says he would have to look at his records to find out how many criminal cases have been prosecuted against him.    

Plaintiff wins her $800+ for the tires. 

Edited June 7, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

20 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 By the way, that rug is hideous.     Those stains on the rug are horrible.   

Honestly, I couldn't tell the difference between the stains and the pattern. It looked like someone or something crapped all over it.  Would a cleaner of any kind - clothes, car upholstery, rugs - guarantee they can remove any stains? Of course not and that was dumb, but JM, if you're going to rag on grammar there will be no time for the cases. 

25 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff was driving Lyft with a passenger, when defendant's 27 foot box truck ran into him, and he wants $1410 for his deductible, and lost wages.

Like JM, I have no idea who was in the wrong, but P seemed as though he may have had a few cocktails before appearing here. I would be leery of taking a Lyft ride with him. When the case appears to be going the D's way, he interjects with a very helpful, "Woosah!"

28 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 3- Plaintiff says defendant slashed her tired when she was at a Buddhism temple, in defendant's neighborhood. 

The little, hobbity, wimpy, incel-looking def is 38 years old! Yet he's up to all kinds of juvenile hijinks that get him arrested so many times he can't state the exact number. DUI, larceny, disturbing the peace, public mischief, and who knows what else.

No way was that douche going to "confront" anyone (someone who might have said mean things about him according to some hearsay) but was planning, after imbibing some liquid courage, to sneakily vandalize that person's property, because this is a good way  for a middle-aged man to retaliate against alleged name-calling. I'm glad JM added "imbecile" to his list of credits. I hope he doesn't try to slash her tires.

P was totally in the right of course, but tries to pad her claim by implying her car is a year old when it's actually eight years old, and tries for the old 'lost wages" but with zero proof. She could have taken a taxi or an Uber to work, kept the bills and added those to her complaint. Don't any of  these litigants ever watch this show to learn that a judge just might ask for proof because their unimpeachable testimony might not be enough? Guess not.  Oh, well. At least she didn't attempt to tack on emotional distress.

[CrazyInAlabama]

new, " Fighting WIth Your Childhood Friend"

Case 1-Plaintiff and defendant have known each other since elementary school.   They roomed together, and during the second year of the lease, defendant wanted to move out.  Lease breaking is two month's rent (60 days notice), plus another month's rent, adds up to $3216.  Plaintiff also wants utility payments.   The two litigants both work at the same school. 

Plaintiff never put in notice with the apartment office, and defendant claims she emailed to the office.   Defendant claims after the defendant moved out, that plaintiff told defendant's  father of her child that the child wasn't his.  By the way, defendant's baby isn't here yet, it's due in a couple of days.   

Plaintiff is staying in the apartment, and only has proof of paying $440, defendant says she paid $200.  I'm sick of both litigants. I don't need to hear about the dilation and pregnancy of defendant.  Money to plaintiff, $1157.

The ask the Judges segment is a $11k loan to a grandson, with a signed promissory note, and he's paying sporadically.    She wants to know if she can garnish his wages, and Judge John says don't sue your grandchild.   JM says get a court judgment, and garnish his wages.    Judge John really pissed Judge Marilyn off with his forgiveness comment.    Actually, he pissed me off too.  I'm just glad Grandma got the signed promissory note from loser grandson. 

Case 2-Plaintiff bought a car from defendant, claims defendant fudged the paperwork to make it look like she paid less than she did.   Defendant says he didn't fudge anything, and plaintiff fell behind in payments, and is mad about having to pay late fees.  JM says that putting the purchase price lower is usually a way to defraud the government on taxes, and both parties are in on it.   Plaintiff bought a used Honda Passport for just under $2990.  Then, after a test drive she said she only had $2700, and owed $570, so a total of $3270.

Bill of Sale says $2000, so JM thinks it's to cheat the tax man, and usually mutual.    Defendant says he bought it for $2,000, and would sell to her for $2,000.   So, she still owed the $570, and didn't pay that.    The plaintiff is bringing up her two kids, her breakup with the boyfriend, and I simply don't care.    Plaintiff only paid a little of the late fee on the $570, and of course, plaintiff doesn't have the texts.   

THen, after plaintiff started posting nasty reviews on Facebook, and other social media, he told her that he would forgive everything, but that was a ploy by defendant so she wouldn't hide the car so defendant couldn't repo the car.    By the way, the ex boyfriend isn't an ex, and probably never was.  You can hear him talking off camera, and loser plaintiff finally admits that she's back together with him, and probably they never broke up. 

So, plaintiff still has the car, and wants the title.    JM is giving defendant $20, cancelling the fees. 

$20 to defendant, $0 to plaintiff.   Don't know if she's getting the title and don't care.  

Edited June 8, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[Carolina Girl]

23 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Like JM, I have no idea who was in the wrong, but P seemed as though he may have had a few cocktails before appearing here. I would be leery of taking a Lyft ride with him. When the case appears to be going the D's way, he interjects with a very helpful, "Woosah!"

I may have missed it, but did JM at any time ask the plaintiff what turn signal the defendant was flashing?  That would have been my first question and if I were the plaintiff, I would have made it a point - never mind what lane he was in - did he have his turn signal going?

[AngelaHunter]

25 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

I may have missed it, but did JM at any time ask the plaintiff what turn signal the defendant was flashing? 

I was waiting for JM to ask that, since it was established that def changed his route because of  construction, but she never asked him and it wasn't mentioned by either party, IIRC. Woosah!

29 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

" Fighting WIth Your Childhood Friend"

They both work at an elementary school and are wonderful role models for the kids, I'm sure. P appeared in her best, fake, flowing, lacefront and eyelashes and agrees that she told D she might have to "hit her" over their disagreement about the apartment. It seems P merely "charged at" D, informing her that her being preggo is the only reason for the lack of a beatdown.

Def seems a little oversexed, rutting with various guys while not bothering with birth control, according to her texts to Ms Lacefront. Of course she got knocked up and P took screenshots of their convo concerning D's screwing around and ratted to her babydaddy that he might not be the sire of the upcoming (at any moment now) Blessed Event.  I hope they tell the kiddies, "Do what we say, not as we do".

36 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The ask the Judges segment is a $11k loan to a grandson, with a signed promissory note, and he's paying sporadically. 

 Judge John reminds me so much of Papa Mike on Hot Bench. He thinks Granny should knit grandson a sweater and not sue him? Isn't that what Grandmas do - knit? JM smacks him down for that, quite rightly. If Grandson borrowed 11K, I'm assuming he's an adult man and needs to pay what he owes after mooching from Granny like a big ol' baby.

39 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff bought a car from defendant, claims defendant fudged the paperwork to make it look like she paid less than she did.

Oh, these two. P, a SSMO2 with two different baby daddies, with the tears and excuses, and the hustler Def, who starts his testimony with , "You two ladies look beautiful" were quite the pair. JM gives a major eyeroll. His big Joker grin was wiped off by the time this case ended. All this acrimony, suits, countersuits, defaming, and hostility over a Volkswagon that has celebrated its quarter-century B-day.

Poor little SSMO has no idea why D wrote 2K on the bill of sale. No, really she doesn't. How would she know? She never even glanced at it and doesn't know anything about tax cheating. She says she got some investigor to find out why? Is that what she said? Def does all his business on FB Marketplace, your one-stop shopping for making your dreams come true. Of course, if no one used FB or CL to find housemates, cars, soul mates, two-legged ATMs and the like, there might be a scarcity of cases.

Boo-hoo! She broke up with her boyfriend. So? (JM hears him yelling in the background and P admits they're "working it out" since he is daddy to one of her offspring) and she couldn't buy her son a birthday gift! Tears supposedly leak. even though I saw none. I guess the baby daddy couldn't chip in for the birthday.

D is a very professional businessman who phones P and starts screaming F-bombs at her and demands to speak with her boyfriend. After all, this is MAN business for real men! That goes over well with JM and sends sends Douglas into the giggles.

In the "hall" Def inquires of Doug if he can take this to another court and Doug disabuses him of that notion PDQ. 😏

Dumb Bunny day on TPC.

[CrazyInAlabama]

New "Daughter Drama"

Case 1 -Plaintiff daughter suing defendant mother for not paying back money daughter loaned mother for a car.   Defendant claims it was a common purchase, and was meant to be shared, and owes her daughter nothing.  Another wrinkle is daughter has a drivers license, but mother doesn't.     Car payment is $500 a month, with each litigant paying half.  

Daughter has MS, so moves slowly in the mornings, and mother calls her for a ride to the bank.  Then, mother demands that plaintiff let her non-licensed nephew (plaintiff's cousin) have the car for two weeks.   Then the mother said the plaintiff stole the car, so police came to her house to get the car.    

Insurance is all in plaintiff's name, the nephew/cousin, and mother couldn't be listed or insured because they have no license.   Mother still thinks that she can loan the car out to anyone she wants.   

This whole plan was a disaster from the beginning.   Plaintiff hasn't seen her mother since the demand to give the nephew/cousin the car, and says she doesn't want to change the situation with her mother.   

JM is giving the defendant more understanding than I would.   Grandma knew exactly what she was doing, and doesn't care.  JM is lecturing daughter on how clueless her mother is.    My opinion, defendant is not clueless, and doesn't care about anything.   Car is sitting in a parking lot, defendant claims no one is driving it.  Insurance would not cover the daughter-in-law or the nephew either.   So, I guess the defendant keeps the car?   I would take my name off of the title/registration, and cancel the insurance.   You know that car is probably on the road constantly. 

Plaintiff gets $860.

Judges are asked about getting rid of a time share.  How cute, Judge John says you can sell them.  No you can't, and in many cases can't surrender them even with paying the time share company extra, and many charities or other inheritors won't accept them.   I know people who refused (declaimed?) an inheritance, because it included time shares, and they didn't want to get stuck with all of the insurance, maintenance fees, etc.  Plus, the time shares are occupied, and by how many other owners?   

Case 2-Plaintiff hired defendant to install security cameras.  He claims the cameras were placed wrong, never worked right, and wants his $1044.  Defendant says he did a good job, but plaintiff moved the control station himself, and screwed up the system.  

Then, defendant was told refund because plaintiff was going elsewhere.  

Plaintiff gets $1024, and the equipment goes back to defendant. 

Edited June 10, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

19 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 1 -Plaintiff daughter suing defendant mother for not paying back money daughter loaned mother for a car. 

*Sigh* Car sharing, horrible relationship with mother/daughter, grandson is baby daddy of two, lives with his grammy with his "fiancee", has no license, into "shady" things, according to P, and the usual loving family relationships. Momma says only the fiancee, with an impeccable driving record (at least, Momma thinks it's impeccable) will drive the car when everyone within the sound of this case knows shady baby daddy will be driving it, not that it matters since P didn't want anyone driving it. As we well know, many people driving a car registered and insured in someone else's name doesn't give a shit what they do with it. I was surprised JM didn't trot out the "What if he hit a busload of nuns?" because their lives are much more valuable than those of "us mere mortals". Sour-faced Momma is wearing a wig hat.

26 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff hired defendant to install security cameras. 

Yes, the cheap does come out expensive as we see time and time again. P hires doofus who doesn't seem too knowledgeable about what he's doing and after 2 crappy installs, informs P that after he takes a course to learn how to do this properly for sure he'll come back and do it. P wisely decides to hire real installers for nearly 2 1/2  times the price of D's not-so-handy work.

D trots out the BS of so many before him:  "My character is... the type of character I have..." while trying to explain how wonderful he is yet it seems his type of character is one that gets paid for work he doesn't know how to do and then keeps the money. When talking to Doug, he folllows the script of so many other losers and whines, "The judge didn't let me TALK!" Yeah, she did and heard enough. He needs to take some more  courses before trying this again.

Time shares: Judge John feels differently, but I get the impression that these can't even be given away. On our honeymoon my hubby and I were invited to a time share seminar/sales pitch and were promised a free bottle of rum for listening to it. We went, we sat, we listened, we decided no and the presenter was not nearly so friendly when we asked for our rum as he was when we first entered. Imagine that.

They might be worthwhile if you're retired and have no time restrictions on when you can use it. Otherwise, I'll pass on what appear to be albatrosses around a person's neck.

[DoctorK]

Today's first case was the most interesting (and satisfying) I have seen in a long time. The basic case is plaintiff biker claiming he was assaulted by the passenger (retired cop) in a car in a sort of mutual road rage incident. The stories from each side are completely contradictory and I was afraid we would get another he said - he said case with no conclusion. After JM asked the defendant about him flashing a badge at the incident, he said he was a retired (30 years) cop, and then used that several times to bolster his testimony and his assessment of the danger provided by the plaintiff. However, some of his details seemed shaky, and when questioned by JM insisted that he is just telling the exact truth about his entire story. I got a hint that the retired cop was going to go down in flames when JM pushed him to unequivocally repeat that he only hit the plaintiff exactly one time. The plaintiff never made contact with the defendant, but defendant claimed that the plaintiff, while straddling his 850 pound bike and holding it up while several feet away from the defendant, his cop experience told him that the plaintiff was an immediate danger when the plaintiff "lunged" at him (while holding up the bike and from several feet away). Fortunately, the plaintiff (or the show producers) got copies of the body cams from the responding police at the scene, including an interview with a young lady with no connection to either litigant which contradicted the defendant's story. The icing on the cake was the pictures of the plaintiff's injuries clearly showing a cut on his ear, a split lip and a black eye, prompting JM to ask the defendant how big his fist was if one punch caused three widely separated injuries. I am glad that JM called him out for being an embarrassment to police. I wonder if he was as fast and loose with facts when he was on duty.

The rest of the show was blah.

Edited June 10, 2022 by DoctorK

[CrazyInAlabama]

Great synopsis.   I had to meet my UPS guy at the doorstep, and he's a higher priority.  

The bike case part I saw, was certainly different from the usual desperate exes, and ridiculous loans.   The body cams came in very useful too.   Defendant should have been arrested, but I bet the ex-cop part factored into that decision.   If the defendant was a cop in the local area, I can see why plaintiff sued on the TV show.  

Case 2-Plaintiff and 2 year old was sharing an apartment with her aunt, and when plaintiff was at her boyfriend's place, defendant would have all of her kids over, and used plaintiff's bedroom.  Otherwise, I guess aunt just crammed the kids into the apartment when plaintiff was there.   Aunt claims plaintiff niece was barely ever at the apartment. Plaintiff is suing for half of the apartment fee $250, and other lease breaking fees.  Then, plaintiff claims defendant owes her money, defendant of course, says she paid plaintiff everything.  I just want to know how many people you can cram into a two bedroom apartment?   Plaintiff, her kid, defendant and at her kids?   

So, I can see both sides, if you're paying rent, it's your bedroom to use or not use, it's not aunt/defendant's right to take it over.   I don't understand why JM is so worried if a 2-year-old is listed on the lease.  So, was JM worried about how many kids and whoever else defendant moved into the apartment?   Instead, plaintiff didn't pay rent or utilities, and gave no notice when she decided to move out. 

I don't quite understand how anyone can figure this out, $1597 to plaintiff, and defendant keeps the apartment. 

Edited June 11, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

oday's first case was the most interesting (and satisfying) I have seen in a long time.

Exactly this. I got quite caught up in this. Finally, a case about a serious issue not concerning stupid roommate battles, cell phones, pathetic fecund women who will pay losers anything for booty calls, hypersexuality, old TVs, wig wars, and carelessly spawned babies.

It seems wisdom doesn't necessarily come with age. Even though the violent ex-cop with the short fuse no doubt has friends on the police force, no one could ignore the testimony of the impartial witness whose story completely backs up what P said - that Def is a lunatic who, after dragging P off his bike beat the shit out of him in the Galahad-like defense of his wife who was sitting in the car while P was on his bike holding it up. She couldn't roll the window up? This ex-cop has a novel way of "de-escalating" a situation.

If D hit P only once, he must have a fist like Hellboy's to do all that damage on various parts of P's head, from his ear to his eye and mouth. Yay for the witness whose story was very compelling and left no doubt in JM's mind who was telling the truth. So disgusted and angry was she at the vile behavior of this ex-cop we even got a "Jesus!" from her.  P should have sued for the 5K limit. I'm sure he would have been awarded that amount.

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

The rest of the show was blah.

What a come-down. Sainted Single mothers, niece and aunt, MIA baby daddies, and all that. I hit FF and stopped, heard P droning over JM, the word "disrespect" and quit.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I just want to know how many people you can cram into a two bedroom apartment?

I'm pretty sure I recall one case (maybe on JJ?) where there were about 10 people and various unfortunate animals crammed into a tiny place like this and gee - it wasn't the idyllic situation the litigants expected. 

Hot Bench seems to have the more interesting cases, but I just can't quit TPC.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Rerun "Angry Exes"

Case 1-Plaintiff is really desperate for something I won't mention, so bought new loser boyfriend $8,000 of furniture.   Now that they're not together, he kept the furniture, and won't pay Miss Desperate back.    The plaintiff is sitting in a gaming chair I guess, it's pink and white.    They met in November, were still dating in February, and she bought the furniture for loser Love Muffin to impress his out of town friends, furniture cost over $8,000, on a bartender's salary.   JM says defendant was treating plaintiff like a Sugar Mama. 

She's also suing for all kinds of stuff like vapes, dinner out, miscellaneous purchases.  

Bet when plaintiff meets some other loser, she'll do the same thing again. 

Plaintiff loses, no proof. 

Case 2-Plaintiff says neighbor's tree fell on her camper.   $1052 is what she wants.   Defendant says she's suing for more than camper was worth, and it was an Act of God.   Defendant claims camper wasn't on plaintiff's property, but on the middle of a trail.  Plaintiff claims it's her landlord's property, and a shared easement where the 1985 pop up camper was parked.    Defendant says the wind blew the tree down. 

From the overhead schematic of the property, defendant has a 10' easement on the edge of the property, it looks like it's the road side.    Plaintiff claims there are holes between or around the roots, but her 'arborist' isn't really an arborist.  Plaintiff's landlady claims the defendant/neighbor said the tree was ready to fall.   

Of course, along with the missing arborist, the landlady's husband isn't around to testify either, so everything is hearsay.   Plaintiff's letter to defendant citing her 'arborist' determination that the tree was diseased is also not real.   

Plaintiff loses. 

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Rerun "Angry Exes"

That woman sounded even more absurd on rewatch. In fact, she might be in the Top 10 of "Desperate Women and the Things They Do to Keep Their Losers."

[CrazyInAlabama]

""Nightmare Neighbor" rerun from May 17, but still hysterically bizarre. 

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, identified as a neighbor's grandson, who defendant claims grandson sells pills to plaintiff and she owes him money.    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.   

Plaintiff keeps yelling all through the case.   I actually had to put closed captioning on, and even gave up on that.   

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 (grandson of a neighbor).   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.   My guess is the list of people who are sick of plaintiff is very long.  

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). 

Today's rerun about the 19, later 20-year-old trying to buy a custom made AR-15 from a gundealer is appalling.   

JM keeps yelling at the gundealer for not selling the under 21 (legal age for purchase of that gun in Florida) gun to plaintiff's father.   Selling to the father, for the under 21 year-old plaintiff is a Strawman Purchase, and highly illegal.     JM is doing anything to favor the underage plaintiff.   

Edited June 17, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[cinsays]

On 6/14/2022 at 11:18 AM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Today's rerun about the 19, later 20-year-old trying to buy a custom made AR-15 from a gundealer.    JM keeps yelling at the gundealer for not selling the under 21 (legal age for purchase of that gun in Florida) gun to plaintiff's father.   Selling to the father, for the under 21 year-old plaintiff is a Strawman Purchase, and highly illegal.     JM is doing anything to favor the underage plaintiff.   

Ugh.  This was a pretty scary case.  Sure, he just wanted the gun for target practice or just to have available.  Why would this dumb kid and his father want this case aired?  Did the guy making the gun hope to drum up more business by advertising his "skill"?

[AZChristian]

11 minutes ago, cinsays said:

Did the guy making the gun hope to drum up more business by advertising his "skill"?

The sad thing is . . . he probably did.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today's rerun, "Rap Battle".   I skipped the first case, maybe the second too, but Case #3 is a Bigfoot hunter, suing a defendant for not making a professional enough promotional video for his latest Big Foot movie.   She did make the promotional video, but plaintiff says it was amateurish, everything about it was awful.     He's been hunting Big Foot, and making movies about it for 50 years.   You have to admit that this is a different case that we haven't seen before.    I think a lot stopped watching after the rap battle nothing burger of a case.  

Edited June 17, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

I skipped the Rap combatants too, but it reminded me of something someone wrote many years ago; "If the people becoming Elvis impersonators increases exponentially, by the year ____ every third person will be an Elvis impersonator." I feel this may also be true for rappers.

I must have cut out too early because I missed the Bigfoot hunter. Hunting for 50 years and has not yet found it? I must go back and watch since I don't remember this.

[CrazyInAlabama]

New, "Race Car Rage"

Case 1-Plaintiff says he purchased a race car with defendant, they were both going to race it, but claims defendant took the car over, and he never got to drive it, suing for $4445.  Plaintiff claims car was never finished. 

(Plaintiff claims he was broke after buying the race car, and a house that needs a roof.  Why do I guess that plaintiff is one of the people who skipped inspections to get the property?)

Defendant says plaintiff backed out of the deal, and plaintiff couldn't pay up, and wants $4900 for storage fees for the car.  Defendant says after plaintiff threatened to rip the engine out of the car, she threatened to call police on him.  

Plaintiff claims defendant was going to buy him out of the car, but never did.  I don't like the way plaintiff handled this, but defendant comes across to me as a major drama queen.  Again, JM picks the one who claims they're the victim here.   Defendant claims she had to store the car in her heated basement, but never contracted for storage for the car.  

Decision is for defendant, counter claim by defendant is dismissed.   Oh no, JM's advise.  In the hall-terview with Doug, defendant who wasn't racing any more because of the risk, is going back to racing.    Doug brings the risk up, and apparently defendant doesn't care about risk. 

Case 2-Plaintiff is a broker that sells businesses, and sold a business to defendant, and wants his $5,000 commission on buying Carpe Diem Pizza.   However, the defendant (owns the Pizza Mafia Grill) and business seller never came to a meeting of minds, and business was sold to someone else.  The buyer of the pizza place skipped town owing everyone, and no one's seen him since. (bad idea to buy a pizza place in a lot of places back east, some of those in the business are connected). This was in Fairport,  New York.   

The letter of intent says plaintiff is the listing broker, but there's only a contract paragraph about  earnest money deposits, and nothing for consulting fees from defendant to plaintiff.   

There is no contract for the commission between plaintiff and defendant.   Defendant and a friend were going to buy the pizza business.   However, plaintiff claims owner of pizza place sold to another buyer.   (If this is the Carpe Diem pizza in Fairport, it's long gone).   Plaintiff/realtor claims earnest money is for commissions for him, but it isn't. 

Defendant says he met with plaintiff last January, to buy the business but claims he was lied to by plaintiff and the seller.    Defendant turned the business buy down.   

Seller sold to someone else, and the buyer abandoned the property last September.  Defendant talked to landlord about renting the space, equipment is owned by the landlord.   Plaintiff was no part of the rental and final deal.     Apparently the business is still around as "The Pizza Mafia Grill", reviews are good.  

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Edited June 21, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

New, "Race Car Rage"

I enjoyed today's cases, devoid of sordidness!

P, with Mario Andretti fantasies and riding high on his lucrative mechanic job, decides to buy a non-working racing car with Def AND buy a house. Seems neither of them thought anything through. They saw the wreck for sale for 6500$ and "jumped". Sadly, P didn't bother with a house inspection it seems, since he found out a new roof was needed so he couldn't pay for the work on the race car, even though he says he's mechanic to the racing stars. He tells Def she has to buy him out or he'll come and take back the car and tranny. Since he's the one backing out of the deal with a "Sorry. I just realized I can't afford it" it's hard to understand why he thinks he can issue orders and make demands.

Of course he and Def had nothing in writing. Why would they? They're both race car nuts, so they had a bond and trusted each other. That worked out as per usual.

Def seemed to be insinuating she had sponsors for her racing, but upon further questioning it turns out she races cars for her daddy, and her hubby does same for HIS daddy. Drama queen for sure . Racing is her life! It's her whole life! Well, that and her kids, I guess. Her CHILDREN saw the idiotic fistfight - she calls it an "altercation" progressing from verbal to physical -  at the racetrack, involving her hubby. They saw a car leave the track and run into her and Granddaddy (or maybe Great-Granddaddy?) and it broke her ribs! Well, I guess if you take a 5-year-old and a toddler to a racetrack (she already has them racing in go-carts) they're bound to see something they shouldn't, like possibly fatal accidents, fires, and their daddy acting like a fool as these babies stand at ground level breathing in all the exhaust fumes. Tough for them. It's Mommy's LIFE!

Douglas was getting a kick out of all this wannabe nonsense.

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff is a broker that sells businesses, and sold a business to defendant, and wants his $5,000 commission on buying Carpe Diem Pizza. 

That was good. P is a stupid crook and pompous asshole, who tries to tell JM what is relevant, since he took a law course once because he knows how important contracts are, and says he was a broker. He earned 5K by setting up def. to get a lease on a pizza restaurant, and got the equipment included. Sadly all his law learning did him no good, since he has no such contract.

His fugazi, generic contract, probably printed from some template online, with Def is about buying real estate, not leasing it. He tries to tell JM that "Ernest Money" means his commission! He thinks JM is an idiot which ticks her off. Might be time for him to take a refresher course. It seems everything he says is a lie and when asked for proof of anything, starts babbling nonsense.

[AZChristian]

Loved the irony of JM being asked whether the backgrounds of the litigants has any influence on her.  Meanwhile, we're all looking at the background behind her and John, forming opinions of them based on the backgrounds at their house.  LOL.

[AngelaHunter]

13 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Loved the irony of JM being asked whether the backgrounds of the litigants has any influence on her.  Meanwhile, we're all looking at the background behind her and John, forming opinions of them based on the backgrounds at their house.  LOL.

😄  True! I recall the case that John mentioned, of that battleaxe suing for some shitty contact-paper end table she says was ruined by the toothless total stranger she had installed in one of her bedrooms. She took the camera and started lumbering around the house, trying to find this precious article. It was pretty funny.

[VartanFan]

Quote

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

I’m catching up on a month’s worth of shows and this woman was ridiculous.  She said the landlord treated her like a DOG because he wouldn’t come and change a light bulb for her!  I had to rewatch because at the end - after oddly screaming at JMM “THANK YOU!’ - he says ‘bitch’ at the defendant.  

Also, I may be in the minority but i think the cat, Finn, should have been returned to the P.  

[AngelaHunter]

New cases, but no show for me. Some earth-shaking event happened - alien invasion? A comet headed for Earth to destroy all life? - but whatever it was couldn't wait til the news hour and couldn't butt in to any other show.

[rcc]

21 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

New cases, but no show for me. Some earth-shaking event happened - alien invasion? A comet headed for Earth to destroy all life? - but whatever it was couldn't wait til the news hour and couldn't butt in to any other show.

Women making bad choices and tenant leaving the place a mess. Not a good show day. You didn't miss much.

[CrazyInAlabama]

21 minutes ago, rcc said:

Women making bad choices and tenant leaving the place a mess. Not a good show day. You didn't miss much.

Thanks!   I missed the show also.   My door bell rang, and the nice lady across the street had grabbed the wrong keys, and locked herself out, so no phone, no nothing.   So, she called her husband, and he ran home from work to let her in.    I suggest everyone that has a safe place to bury a key in a little bottle, and that way you never get locked out.   

Sounds like I didn't miss much.   Thanks to rcc for the summary.    I'm sure they'll rerun this within a week or two on my morning reruns of TPC.  

[AZChristian]

Note to women in Cases 1 and 2:  Make female friends, go Dutch treat to meals and social events, and buy a vibrator.  Y'all are meeting some real losers.

On Case 3:  The picture of the kitchen window in the "before rental" photos did not show shutters at the kitchen window.  The picture of the kitchen window in the "after tenant left" picture did.  Something doesn't add up.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, rcc said:

Women making bad choices and tenant leaving the place a mess. Not a good show day. You didn't miss much.

Thanks! It may have been new, but we've seen that scenario countless times already.

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

My door bell rang, and the nice lady across the street had grabbed the wrong keys, and locked herself out, so no phone, no nothing. 

Been there, done that. I won't bore you with the ordeal, but it ended with me prying open a basement window with a garden spade, and crawling through into the garage, trying to block out of my mind how many spiders there probably were. 😱

[CrazyInAlabama]

New, and sad.  "Cleaning Catastrophe"

Case 1-Plaintiff hired defendant's company to clean her later mother's house.  Mother was a shut in, and heavy smoker, and the house was coated with nicotine.   Plaintiff had an early estimate of $1200.      Then, the b word was mentioned (Bed Bug) and the price went up a lot.  Then, after the two + days of cleaning, plaintiff had paid $600 up front,  (Defendant looks very familiar, maybe from another case?).    Plaintiff paid the rest of the money, and $100 tip. 

Then, a pipe in the basement burst, and insurance adjustor came to the house.   Then, plaintiff's son looked around and claims the house wasn't clean.    How could anyone clean that place up?   You can't get rid of bed bugs with regular cleaning either, it takes a specialty pest control service.  (I wonder if a specialty bed bug elimination company was called in.  My termite and pest control company won't deal with bed bugs, and have another company they recommend, and they're expensive.)

(I've read the best cleaning solution for nicotine stained walls is TSP Tri Sodium Phosphate, if that doesn't do it, call the bulldozer). 

Defendant says it's one of the worst houses she's ever tried to clean.   Defendant says she told the plaintiff that just cleaning wasn't going to take care of the cigarette smell either.   That the place would have to be painted, flooring pulled out, etc. 

 A friend was looking at houses, and saw a great bargain (this was years ago).   It was cheap because the former owners were chain smokers.   A home inspector he knew looked at it, and said to get rid of left over chain smoking residue and smell, you have to clean every surface, rip out rugs, and any soft surfaces, popcorn ceiling will absorb it too, and the ceiling insulation will keep the stench too.  My friend passed on the house. 

Defendant says the plaintiff's boyfriend also smoked meth there too.  If grandma was such a recluse, then why was the boyfriend living there?   I'm guessing plaintiff didn't want anything to do with her mother, until she could clean out and sell the place. 

JM is wrong, no one could clean that house without repeated cleanings with specific cleaners.  Plaintiff wants the entire $1500 back. 

Plaintiff loses.    She wouldn't let the defendant come back, so she loses.    

Case 2-Plaintiff hired defendant to install security cameras at her home.   She's suing for $855 back from defendant.  Defendant says plaintiff kept adding more work, subtracting work, and also made advances to him, and he just wanted to finish the job,  and leave.  Some of the jobs she wanted was to install a bunch of chandeliers for her, ceiling fans, and other items.    The texts from plaintiff to defendant sound way beyond a work relationship.

Plaintiff gets $200, and defendant says he done dealing with plaintiff.

Edited June 23, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[callie lee 29]

I don't often comment here but I can tell from experience nicotine does not come off easily. Ever. After my mom died (life long smoker, did of lung cancer) the walls were bad, but not as bad as they could have been since I washed them 4x a year with a bleach solution. They still needed complete repainting with kilz. After my uncle and grandmother died (he was a chain simpler and nobody cleaned those walls for 30 years) that stain and smell still soaked through even multiple coats of kilz. It's been about 16 years now and every once in awhile I can still get a wiff of cigarette smell in his old room. 

[AngelaHunter]

25 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

New, and sad.  "Cleaning Catastrophe"

Call me mean, but I could not stand the plaintiff. Her 88 year old mother is left to live in "filthy" squalor because she barricades herself in and won't let anyone in, including her daughter and daughter-in-law, who leaves food for her on the steps? Sorry, but if my mother at that age lived alone, I guarantee I would find a way to get in and take care of her.

P managed to get there PDQ when Mom passed away. Anxious for the proceeds of the house sale, I assume, although I could be wrong. Everything in the house is covered in nicotine stains "Didn't she go outside to smoke?" JM asks, which I thought was ridiculous, but anyway P hires D to clean the place up. I thought 1200$ was very cheap as well, considering they were expected to wash every wall in every room of the house and this was not a job for your average housekeeper. She should have just hired D to do the usual cleaning and had the walls and carpets done by pros in those areas, but she wanted cheap as possible.

P is such a victim. Her mom dies (at 88 it's hardly shocking and I'm surprised she lived that long with zero help from her family) and then her daughter goes into a coma because Granny died? Is that what I heard? Oh, but daughter is just fine now. Then a pipe breaks in the old house and poor P is just frazzled. JM is very sympathetic, which lures P into a false sense of security.

I don't believe there were bedbugs. Everyone wants to call every insect or carpet beetle a bedbug. True, D didn't do a great job and could have cleaned that microwave easily after a spray with a degreaser or a wipe with Mr. Clean Magic Eraser but P decides that nothing she did was worth a single penny and wants all the money back. IMO, it would have taken a week to make that place decent. She inspected the work when it was getting dark out, so it's not her fault she didn't notice the gross oversights! Nothing is her fault, not even that she gave D a 100$ tip. She may have been awarded a few dollars back had she not been so greedy, trying to get something for nothing but I'm glad she got zip. She's a liar too, saying D ignored her texts. Once again, JM has to inform a business person how to do business.

38 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff hired defendant to install security cameras at her home. 

Another unbearable plaintiff. Sunday trowled on her best pink eyeshadow and fake lashes for this case, and of course we hear how a business arrangement devolved into possible sexuality when she tells her handyman how she misses the sound of his voice? Yeah, when I look at P I get why D didn't want anything more to do with her. Alluring, she is not.

Naturally, this handyman doesn't happen to have any receipts for the stuff he says he bought for her job and all that usual nonsense. The guy who did my bathroom had to go out and buy some supplies. He brought me back the receipt. It's not that difficult.

Sunday talks to her brother who 'is like', "You do not need nobody to do the faucets. You can install them".

Sunday is 'like', "No, I can't", and the part that bugged me was JM. looking ernest and agreeing with a "Right!" JM, you are the biggest advocate of Woman Power, and this is not the first time you've been astonished at a woman doing "man work" or a woman being expected to do "man work". WTF? I guess she's only for Woman Power when it means nothing physical and you don't have to get your hands dirty or risk breaking a nail?🙄

I wanted to change a faucet and didn't feel like trying to get a plumber to do it and paying a fortune, so I went to YT and found out it's not that complicated and did it myself. Imagine that. I also found out how to remove the sink and vanity and did that too! A little lady like me did this Man Work. I'm sure JM would be stunned. We don't have to be helpless and sit wringing our hands and waiting for a man, believe it or not, JM.

[Guest]

22 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Call me mean, but I could not stand the plaintiff. Her 88 year old mother is left to live in "filthy" squalor because she barricades herself in and won't let anyone in, including her daughter and daughter-in-law, who leaves food for her on the steps? 

Plaintiff acted pretty high and mighty for a woman whose mother was living in a pigsty with a meth head boyfriend.  Or is it companion?  My guy?  Significant other?  I’ve been corrected so many times for a subject of which I have zero interest 

22 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

P managed to get there PDQ when Mom passed away. Anxious for the proceeds of the house sale, I assume, although I could be wrong. Everything in the house is covered in nicotine stains

Jaw dropping in that Miss High and Mighty chastised the cleaner for not cleaning behind the microwave or on the side of the stove.

She’s scared witless some of your dead mother’s bed bugs are going to hitch a ride to her house in the cleaning bucket and you want her to somehow create an abode akin to an Architectural Digest cover.  Ain’t. Gonna. Happen.

22 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

P is such a victim. Her mom dies (at 88 it's hardly shocking and I'm surprised she lived that long with zero help from her family) and then her daughter goes into a coma because Granny died? Is that what I heard? Oh, but daughter is just fine now. Then a pipe breaks in the old house and poor P is just frazzled.

Perpetual Victimhood.  

And I’m just sure she has armpit hair.   Because she’s so busy with life’s tragedies she has no time to run a razor,
 

22 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I don't believe there were bedbugs. Everyone wants to call every insect or carpet beetle a bedbug. 
 

I could be wrong but I think the exterminator verified there were bed bugs present. 

22 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Another unbearable plaintiff. Sunday trowled on her best pink eyeshadow and fake lashes for this case, and of course we hear how a business arrangement devolved into possible sexuality when she tells her handyman how she misses the sound of his voice? Yeah, when I look at P I get why D didn't want anything more to do with her. Alluring, she is not.

No she isn’t  A touch stupid but not a drop of alluring in those, like, bones 

22 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Sunday talks to her brother who 'is like', "You do not need nobody to do the faucets. You can install them".

Brother must be one big spender around town. 

22 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Sunday is 'like', "No, I can't", and the part that bugged me was JM. looking ernest and agreeing with a "Right!" JM, you are the biggest advocate of Woman Power, and this is not the first time you've been astonished at a woman doing "man work" or a woman being expected to do "man work". WTF? I guess she's only for Woman Power when it means nothing physical and you don't have to get your hands dirty or risk breaking a nail?🙄

I wanted to change a faucet and didn't feel like trying to get a plumber to do it and paying a fortune, so I went to YT and found out it's not that complicated and did it myself. Imagine that. I also found out how to remove the sink and vanity and did that too! A little lady like me did this Man Work. I'm sure JM would be stunned. We don't have to be helpless and sit wringing our hands and waiting for a man, believe it or not, JM.

Applaud and agreement. 

Edited June 23, 2022 by PsychoKlown

[CrazyInAlabama]

New, "Naughty Neighbor"

Case 1-Plaintiff couldn't watch Thanksgiving Day football, because the defendant's house guest stole his TV. Defendant says police said defendant is civilly liable for the $1,208 for another TV for plaintiff, because he is responsible for his house guest's behavior.  

Defendant was picking up hookers, and someone named Danny or Danni or Dani, stole his garage key fob, and that's how the burglary happened, after he showed his hooker/guest where the mailroom was and the hooker saw the TV in the mailroom and stole it.     Poor Douglas looks like he's about two seconds from laughing so hard that he'll wet his pants. 

Plaintiff gets $1,208. (In the hall-terview, plaintiff calls Doug, Mr. Llewellyn.  What a polite man)

Case 2-Plaintiff hired defendant to replace the house shutters, paid the entire amount, but only received half of the shutters, he's suing for $150.   Defendant says plaintiff ordered the shutters himself, half were the wrong size, and says plaintiff should pay him for coming back to install the other shutters.  (Has the defendant been on this show recently with another shutters, or handyman case? He looks familiar).  On the first install, workman found the shutters were the wrong size for the upper windows.   So, plaintiff went to Lowe's, returned one set, ordered the correct set (upper shutters were the wrong size). 

Plaintiff refused to pay the defendant for another trip for the shutter installation.

Plaintiff paid by the hour, only paid for 2 hours and that time was used up with installing half of the shutters, and the trip to Lowe's to reorder.  So, I think he should pay the defendant the $150.

Hell should freeze over!   I agree with JM, the mistake was plaintiff's not defendant's mistake for ordering the wrong shutters. 

Plaintiff loses,   Except, plaintiff borrowed a ladder from his neighbor, and put the shutters up by himself.    

Case 3-Plaintiff was parked on the street having Sunday dinner, heard a loud thump, and someone without insurance backed into the car.   Plaintiff wants $310 for a rental car, but defendant claims she paid for the accident damage already, and doesn't owe for the rental.   Defendant has the gall to say if plaintiff wants a rental car, she should have her insurance pay for one.   Defendant calls the plaintiff greedy.  (The closed captioning says "Boston Accent" before giving the captions for plaintiff.)   It took two weeks to get the car out of the body shop, and $310 is plaintiff's cost for the rental car.    Defendant actually says plaintiff should have ridden the bus for two weeks.   

 This happened in New Hampshire, when plaintiff was visiting, and NH doesn't require insurance.   However, it is required that drivers without insurance have a substantial bond to pay for their lousy driving.  Then defendant claims she did have insurance starting the week before the accident.   Best part is defendant is a delivery driver for Papa John's. 

Plaintiff wins, defendant is a jerk.  (After the case, plaintiff did send proof how long her car was in the body shop, and she received her rental car money)

Edited June 23, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

29 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 1-Plaintiff couldn't watch Thanksgiving Day football, because the defendant's house guest stole his TV. Defendant says police said defendant is civilly liable for the $1,208 for another TV for plaintiff, because he is responsible for his house guest's behavior.   

Defendant was picking up hookers, and someone named Danny or Danni or Dani, stole his garage key fob, and that's how the burglary happened, after he showed his hooker/guest where the mailroom was and the hooker saw the TV in the mailroom and stole it.     Poor Douglas looks like he's about two seconds from laughing so hard that he'll wet his pants.

😄😆 This sounds utterly hilarious - hookers and thieving house guests and no football, oh, my! - but my show got butted into once again today. They can't horn in on Hotbench reruns, but must do it on TPC. 😡

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

I could be wrong but I think the exterminator verified there were bed bugs present.

Oh, really? I think I tuned out and missed that. But really, shouldn't be surprising when a meth head is permitted to live with this octogenarian and none of the loving family ever checks to see what the hell is going on in the home. I'm sure the meth head took good care of the house and of Mom.

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

Brother must be one big spender around town. 

I believe he's a contractor and was going to Facetime or whatever they do, to instruct his sis on how to do this. She nixed that. As if! She's a girl, after all, and putting her head inside a vanity is not very feminine. Trying to seduce the handyman is more up her alley.

[patty1h]

The defendant in case #3 was a prime example of how millennials have no concept of taking responsibility.  She started whining about her life and problems, looking glazed over and dim while telling the judge that she is a 21 year old mother with two kids and bills and asking how is she supposed to foot the plaintiffs car rental too.  I bet she wouldn't be so forgiving if her car was out of commission and someone told her to take a bus for two weeks while juggling small children.  Selfish young fool.

[rcc]

JM was disgusted with all defendants today. First case he lives in subsidized housing and uses his money to pay for hookers, cheapskate can't buy a longer ladder and cheats a contractor hired to put in his shutters, and last but not least 21 year old with 2 kids driving around with no car insurance. 

[Guest]

14 hours ago, patty1h said:

Selfish young fool.

I’m going to use this.  Probably several times during the day because it’s succinct, awesome and oh so true. Thank you PATTY1H.

13 hours ago, rcc said:

JM was disgusted with all defendants today. First case he lives in subsidized housing and uses his money to pay for hookers, cheapskate can't buy a longer ladder and cheats a contractor hired to put in his shutters, and last but not least 21 year old with 2 kids driving around with no car insurance. 

Me too RCC. Me too 

I think you would have enjoyed this episode AngelaHunter (once you calmed down from all the stupidity).  Try to catch the repeat if you can.

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, rcc said:

last but not least 21 year old with 2 kids driving around with no car insurance. 

An amateur. We once saw a bedraggled 21-year-old dingbat in a gold prom dress who had FOUR kids. The moronic sire of these poor babies earned no money but wanted to have kids while he was young so he could play with them. Not live with them, take care of them, or support them - just play with them.

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

I think you would have enjoyed this episode AngelaHunter (once you calmed down from all the stupidity)

Stupidity is one thing. Renting hookers on the taxpayer's dime is another, but the "It's the case of "SHUTTER"?? HE HARDLY KNEW 'ER!" does sound promising.

[rcc]

Dumb stupid bitch covers for the loser who kicked her dog. He refuses to pay vet bills. The two should never be near a dog.

[patty1h]

"Exes Square Off"  -  I noticed something during this case... the camera made a slow zoom-in on the defendants face in the middle of the case, and then some extreme close ups.   It was weird, reminded me of a TV show or horror movie, the slow pan in.   I guess the camera techs are stepping up their stuff since the show is still filming folks in their homes.

Maybe this camera move had been done in the past on TPC but I never picked up on it before? 

[CrazyInAlabama]

New "Exes Square Off"

Case 1-Plaintiff dated defendant, defendant kicked her dog into a cabinet, and dog was severely injured, and then defendant ran off to Oklahoma.    Plaintiff keeps making excuses for defendant. 

Defendant claims dog snapped at him.   Defendant claims dog snapped at him, so he 'slid' the dog across the floor, and since plaintiff used their joint bank account to pay the vet bill, he owes nothing.   Plaintiff was out of town, returned home to find her dog injured.   Dog is tiny little ball of fluff, 7 lbs.   Plaintiff took dog to vet the next day, and plaintiff claimed she didn't know how the dog was injured. 

Dog may never walk again.   

After the vet, dog can't walk, and needs 24/7 care.   Meanwhile, he's skipping town.

I can't stand either one of these litigants.   So, no one thought about calling the police, until her mother did.  The video is heartbreaking, the dog is dragging her hind legs.   

$5,000 to plaintiff for dog.  $2500 for the MRI that hasn't happened yet, or possible surgery, but that needs documentation.    

$3100 from defendant to plaintiff, but that comes from the show so I still dislike both litigants. 

Case 2-Plaintiff took her car to defendant /mechanic for a new alternator, and he ripped her off.   Defendant says plaintiff complained about the car's performance, but she refused to bring the car in to be checked out.  

Plaintiff gets $465 if she returns the alternator. 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff took her car to defendant /mechanic for a new alternator

Immediately skipped first case because I knew it would make my blood pressure go up. Watched this one, which was kind of boring, except for P, like so many before her, who thought the work on her 11-year-old car should be free because she was annoyed and her time was wasted.

I"ve been annoyed and had my time wasted many times but never thought that entitled me to free anything.

[Carolina Girl]

On 6/24/2022 at 1:16 PM, rcc said:

Dumb stupid bitch covers for the loser who kicked her dog. He refuses to pay vet bills. The two should never be near a dog.

I'd also prohibit either of them from ever becoming parents, either.  That boyfriend's story was pure bullshit.  I think the dog annoyed him, he kicked it, and then threw it at the cabinets in the kitchen.  The way he ran out of state of Oklahoma the minute her Mama said she was calling the cops tells me he KNEW that they would be coming to arrest him.

The fact that SHE was constantly looking to the left rather than straight forward tells me she was less than forthcoming.  And he hasn't learned jack shit from this experience.

[rcc]

2 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

I'd also prohibit either of them from ever becoming parents, either.  That boyfriend's story was pure bullshit.  I think the dog annoyed him, he kicked it, and then threw it at the cabinets in the kitchen.  The way he ran out of state of Oklahoma the minute her Mama said she was calling the cops tells me he KNEW that they would be coming to arrest him.

The fact that SHE was constantly looking to the left rather than straight forward tells me she was less than forthcoming.  And he hasn't learned jack shit from this experience.

Worst litigants I have ever seen. Will that show money go to the care of that poor dog. I doubt it.