The People's Court - General Discussion

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today's 2018 rerun, (Thanks to Bazinga, the real title is Steaming Mad Over a Sideswipe" on Page 108). 

Plaintiff says defendant sideswiped his car, and fled.    Plaintiff says it took two months for the adjuster to even look at his car.   Defendant says plaintiff has no license, registration or insurance, Plaintiff says his car was totaled, he wants $5k for damages on his totaled car, storage fees. etc.   

Plaintiff was waiting for a specific parking space, was backing into it, and he claims that's when defendant sideswiped his entire car side.     Defendant says he was worried he hit the stopped police car.   It's so funny when the tiny model car for the accident recreation loses a tire.    Defendant says plaintiff was stopped in the middle of the street, and they only scrateched each other.  

However, photo of driver's side of plaintiff's car is smashed.   However, defendant says the accident damages don't match up to plaintiff's car side, his bumper height is different.    I wonder if there were very minor damages, and plaintiff had another accident?   Then, when the two litigants met at Auto Zone, defendant was smashed in the head with a wooden object, and plaintiff was arrested. 

Later defendant's gas tank was sugared, but no proof plaintiff did it.  

Adjuster says car was totaled, and it was worth $2500.     Car was stored, and defendant couldn't pay it, so car was scrapped.    Also, receipt from storage facility doesn't look right to JM. 

$2900 to plaintiff.   PLaintiff was still going to have to go to court for the assault.  

Case 2-Plaintiff Brett who wanted a Goofy tattoo, girlfriend wanted a starfish tattoo, and a third one, the plaintiff and girlfriend paid for all three tattoos, but only received 2.   But the third tattoo couldn't be done, because plaintiff paid $150 to tattoo artist who was fired, and was an independent operator, and so defendant doesn't want to supply the tattoo free.   Queen City Tattoo is the shop.    The Goofy tattoo on plaintiff's wrist looks like good work. 

However, tattoo shop claims that plaintiff was a no show for the appointment for the third tattoo, and shop policy says no refunds on missed appointments.   $150 back to plaintiff. 

Case 3-Plaintiff is former tenant and wants her security back, and really wants $5,000 in damages.   Plaintiff was a Section 8 tenant, do they pay their own security deposit?   1 Year lease.   Either way, apartment sounds nice before tenant moved in, lots of granite, laminate floors, lots of tile.   

However, plaintiff claims apartment was disgusting when she moved in, but as usual doesn't have photos.   Plaintiff claims landlord ratted the boyfriend out to Section 8 Housing office.  

Defendant /landlord says Section 8 prohibts moving in tenants not on lease, so plaintiff moved her boyfriend in, also had lots of 'traffic' in and out of her apartment,  Defendant has move in/move out photos, and place looks very nice. 

Plaintiff gets half of her deposit back, but certainly not the $5000 she sued for.   I hope her next landlord saw this case, and took the appropriate photos at move in, and kept a close head count on the number of tenants moving into their property.   

Edited September 12, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

  I wonder if there were very minor damages, and plaintiff had another accident? 

I wouldn't believe anything he said if swore on a stack of bibles AND his tongue was notarized. Probably couldn't get the car out of car jail because he has no proof of ownership. I bet he was working on getting a license, registration, and insurance that very day.

[Bazinga]

Today's episode is from May 17, 2018 and the discussion is on Page 107. 

Here is the direct link:

Worthless Warranty War

Edited September 13, 2022 by Bazinga

[Maverick]

 I'm in a two episodes a day market where the second episode is from a month ago.   Watching one from 2022 back-to-back with one from 2018, it's very noticeable how much more short-tempered MM was in the earlier episodes.  

[AngelaHunter]

I don't know what's going on, but I didn't get through the warranty case of which I had no memory and was kind of enjoying but got another pink screen and then Hot Bench. Bizarre.

Maybe it had something to do with the !Alert Banner! scrolling endlessly on top of the screen and telling people a severe thunderstorm watch was on and that everyone should get out of the rain and stay away from windows. This was puzzling to me because I'm pretty sure in the past that people knew enough to do this without instructions on a loop. But perhaps now it's thought that the majority "doesn't have the sense to come in out of the rain." It frightens me to think maybe this is correct.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Rerun, "Rent Riot" 2018.  (Bazinga say's it actually Worthless Warranty War on page 107)

Case 1-Plaintiff bought a car warranty for a 2002 BMW 7 series, a16-years-old car, from defendant for $3200.   Defendant, the dealership manager,  has no proof he actually purchased the warranty, so plaintiff wants the $3200 back.   

Defendant says the plaintiff never brought the car to the warranty office for inspection, to determine if there were pre-existing conditions, so warranty never went into effect.   Plaintiff claims he tried to get the dealership to honor the warranty.     They took a long recess to let defendant get the documentation.    JM thinks defendant is lying about everything, and watching defendant at the defendant table is hysterical.   The Penn Warranty Company is the warranty company.  JM called the warranty company, but they have no record of plaintiff's contract. 

Defendant claims because plaintiff wouldn't bring the car in for inspection to do the warranty, but says he's only going to give back $1900 of the $3200. 

Plaintiff gets $3200 for warranty, and $1000 in punitive, so $4200.

Case 2- Plaintiff says defendant sold her a defective washer and dryer, didn't charge her tax, and only wanted cash, plaintiff wants $1120.    Defendant says she sent a technician out three times, and plaintiff wouldn't even check the circuit breakers.      Plaintiff says she was 'induced to buy' by defendant because price was lowered several times, and purchasing the washer/dryer was irresistible, with a 90-day warranty.        I know places that discount for paying in full, and pay the tax themselves to get rid of older stock.   (Levin's stupid title is "Wash Her We Hardly Knew Her").

$560 was the price for the used pair.     Plaintiff's witness says he called dozens of times, to get a technician out.   Technician says he fixed the dryer, but plaintiff claims it was still broken.  Defendant claims they swapped the dryer for another brand.   Plaintiff says no replacement happened.    Plaintiff witness says the dryer was swapped for another one, but that one was broken too.   Washer is still working, but plaintiff wants washer and dryer replaced, because she doesn't want to deal with defendant's company again.  Receipt says 90 day warranty, no refunds, no replacements. 

Defendant says when she swapped the dryer out, that the witness called her claiming the dryer didn't work before the technician even was back to the store.  

I wonder if plaintiff ever checked the circuit breaker?   Or if the vent in the wall or outside was blocked?    Plaintiff gets the $250 plus $30 delivery, so $280.   Plaintiff doesn't get the washer money back. 

Case 3-Plaintiff bought a scooter and helmet from defendant, and on day one it broke down, and defendant won't give him a refund of $815.  Scooter was used, and battery died, and defendant replaced the battery.   A few days later defendant say the scooter was defective, and wanted a full refund, unfortunately, before the 30 day warranty was up. 

Defendant has a new and used scooter garage, this scooter was used.  Battery was replaced, and plaintiff claims the battery went a few days later.  

Plaintiff claims he had to pay $100 to get scooter back to defendant's shop twice, so $200.   There is no proof of transportation costs presented, and he kept the helmet, and he wants registration fees ($82) also.  

Defendant will send license plate to plaintiff, and will have to pay $425 plus court costs. 

(My location has a 2022 episode at 10 a.m., traditionally a very recent rerun, and the 3 pm slot is currently for 2018, but will someday have new episodes.)

(Angela, the alert people apparently think we're all stupid.  However, since my subdivision had a community swimming pool, and people would swim after dark, and during thunder storms, apparently some people are stupid). 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

However, since my subdivision had a community swimming pool, and people would swim after dark, and during thunder storms, apparently some people are stupid).

"Some"? 😉 Yeah, we see examples of the horrific stupidity abounding daily, on this and other court shows and in the news.

"Washer? He hardly KNEW 'ER!" I wish the Pink Screen had butted in before I saw that.

[Bazinga]

Today's episode is from June 8, 2018 and the discussion is on Page 110. 

Here is the direct link:

Punching Out a Car

My question is why is this particular time period being reran?  The cases are not all that special or particularly interesting, IMO. 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Bazinga said:

My question is why is this particular time period being reran? 

I have no idea but I'm glad they're doing it. With my memory problems they're all new to me.

I enjoyed rewatching the plaintiff whose "military training" seems to have taught him to be a maniac with zero self-control and a hair-trigger temper whose rage (over being cut off in traffic!) had him chasing def, blocking his car in, and running over a curb and damaging his own car. Of course, that's not his fault. The dweeby def. made him do it. If this is what is learned in the military, it's damned scary.

[Bazinga]

46 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I have no idea but I'm glad they're doing it. With my memory problems they're all new to me.

Yes, might not remember these cases, as it has been over four years, but are these the most memorable cases from the past?  These are average cases, so why pick this, approximately, month or two from four years ago?

After reading the prior discussion where everyone was unhappy that the judge was upholding the defendant's settlement offer in her decision, after rewatching, I believe the judge was not actually holding the car seller defendant to the settlement offer he had made before being sued.  What happened was that he mitigated the damages and sold the car for a certain amount, thereby reducing what he could keep from what the plaintiff had paid him.  Therefore, the plaintiff got some of what she paid back.  The defendant was honest in stating that he ended up selling the car and what he sold it for.  He could have lied and said he did not sell it and the plaintiff would have been out all of the money.  That is why the judge said plaintiff should have taken the settlement offer.  Doug got it wrong in the hallway, the decision really had nothing to do with defendant's settlement offer, it just worked out the same. 

Storage defendant most likely lied to HRA and said the stuff in storage was hers and that is why she got HRA to pay.  Possibly, she also lied about her income in order to be eligible in the first place.  From my knowledge of HRA in NYC, this is called a "one-shot deal" and is usually for rental assistance.  It is like a loan for emergency situations and the recipient is supposed to pay back some or all of the assistance unless they are on SSI.

Edited September 14, 2022 by Bazinga

[CrazyInAlabama]

The Smart Car case was funny, just because of everyone's remarks.     They stopped U.S. sales of Smart Cars a few years ago.      I don't understand how anyone can try to buy a Smart Car, without checking with their insurance company first for coverage.    

The storage unit case was very sneaky.   I wonder why the HRA was paying for the storage unit?  It wasn't even that litigant's stuff.   

The road rage case was bizarre.    I can't believe people still get out of their cars to confront people, it's a stupid idea, and very dangerous. 

Smart Cars are so small and relatively light, so they've been moved from a parking space to the sidewalk, or lawns, or flipped over.    I can't imagine my insurance company either refusing to cover one, or giving me an insurance price that would make me faint. 

Edited September 15, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[cinsays]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The Smart Car case was funny, just because of everyone's remarks.     They stopped U.S. sales of Smart Cars a few years ago.      I don't understand how anyone can try to buy a Smart Car, without checking with their insurance company first for coverage.    

The storage unit case was very sneaky.   I wonder why the HRA was paying for the storage unit?  It wasn't even that litigant's stuff.   

The road rage case was bizarre.    I can't believe people still get out of their cars to confront people, it's a stupid idea, and very dangerous. 

OI the smart car case, i really wonder how that size car can accommodate a woman of her size with the added problem of her mobility issues. I would think just getting in and out of the car would be a struggle.

[NYGirl]

Does anybody know if Peoples Court is canceled?  I don't see any new episodes for the next 3 weeks.

On another note I'm liking the reruns because they are in the courtroom!

[Bazinga]

For everyone's convenience, today's episode is from May 23, 2019 and the discussion is on Page 134.

Direct link:

Yelling about Yoga

Edited September 15, 2022 by Bazinga

[CrazyInAlabama]

Apparently they're coming back in October.    

"Yelling About Yoga"  

Case 1-Woman was hired to teach yoga, at a place that teaches barre method.   PLaintiff was looking for a certification in yoga, to get her fitness career started.   

Unfortunately, plaintiff claims the defendant's studio teacher wasn't certified except under Yoga Alliance studios, standards, and then found out the instructors weren't certified.    Plaintiff started with barre classes, for $1250, and later yoga $3200, to get to certification.   Plaintiff claims she could work for the studio and work off the yoga hours at $16 per hour.   Plaintiff was teaching yoga and barre at another studio.  According to defendant plaintiff was still working off the hours, to equal $4450, at $16.00 an hour.    

Plaintiff heard that some people had sued defendant over the certifications.   Defendant sued two students for non-payment, one started crying in court, so that case was dismissed, and the other one the defendant couldn't find the contract, so it was dropped.    Plaintiff claims the instructors weren't qualified by Yoga Alliance standards of the number of hours (500) or a certain number of years of experience. 

Defendant says plaintiff is an actor, and other entertainment things, and plaintiff changed her mind about getting certified.   Defendant says plaintiff owes $1040, not the $5000 she wants.  

$1040 to defendant, plaintiff loses.  Of course, we all know the award is from the show funds.   And plaintiff gets certifications for the classes she completed.  

Case 1-PLaintiff rented terrible apartment from defendant, so he wants a percentage of the last four years of rent back, $3294, and plaintiff claims he was unhappy all 12 years he lived there.   Defendant says plaintiff is still living there, and not paying rent.  When defendant says she packed up her life to take care of her ill sister, the former landlady, plaintiff says the two women hated each other.  

Plaintiff says the roof leaked for years.  He wants to repaid for loss of use and enjoyment of his apartment.   Plaintiff says some housing advisory group told him that not being given another year lease means that the previous lease automatically renews, and that's not true.   

Defendant issues a written 3 day notice to pay rent to plaintiff, and JM says evict the plaintiff.   Defendant's realtor said selling the building will be easier with tenants on a lease, wrong.   Another realtor who knows nothing.   Plaintiff went to License & Inspections and four citations were filed against defendant.

This is when plaintiff says defendant and late sister hated each other.  He's despicable.  

JM tells litigants that not given a year lease means that the plaintiff is now a month-to-month tenant, and that defendant should go to the city court house, talk to the self-help desk for landlord-tenant issues, and file for eviction, after giving the notice required by Pennsylvania law (Philadelphia is the actual city).   

Decision is the two months of rent need to be included in the eviction action, and plaintiff gets nothing. 

Doug is so kind to defendant in the hall, and she tells him she's going to go forward with the eviction. 

Case 3 Annette Goode bought a POS car from defendant for $1500, and wants her $2237 (including the repairs, and the bribe)  back for the car.   Defendant says the Lincoln with almost 300k miles on it ran fine, and he's not giving her money back.   Plaintiff claims 'everything' was wrong with the car, she test drove it, but no mechanics inspection.  It was on Offer Up.     

Plaintiff paid the inspection station $50 extra to get the inspection passed (yes, a bribe).  Then, plaintiff claims the car was smoking, and falling apart, but defendant paid for a tune up (Cash App $150, but no receipt).   After mechanic says car won't pass inspection, plaintiff bribed the inspector $50 to pass.   Plaintiff claims she paid $317 to fix the car. Plaintiff's daughter received the $150 on Cash App from defendant. 

Plaintiff claims car is undrivable, heating, etc. 

"As Is", so plaintiff is SOL.  (Bazinga suppied the information to the original airing). 

I actually remembered this episode, and I remember very few of them from the 2018 season.   

Edited September 16, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[Bookworm13]

Watching these old cases, it’s very apparent how much of a toll the pandemic took on JM. I’d forgotten how feisty/snarky she could be and I kinda miss it. 
 

I will never understand how/why so many litigants, who know they are suing/being sued over a specific thing, think leaving all relevant paperwork/evidence at home is a good idea. I know they think they’re so charming and will just be able to sweet talk the judge into believing them, but it never works in their favor and they’re left badmouthing JM or crying hysterically and running down the hallway. 
 

ETA : New season begins Monday Oct 17, per the shows FB page! 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Bookworm13

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, Bookworm13 said:

I know they think they’re so charming and will just be able to sweet talk the judge into believing them

It's hard to blame them for feeling that way. After all, so many litigants are here because they chose to absolutely trust the word of someone they hardly know, if not  total strangers and give them large sums of cash with no receipt, let them use credit cards, sell them cars for payments, put them on their stupid phone plans, bail them out of jail, etc, etc.

It's easy to see why these grifters come here and feel that saying, "I have the evidence but it's at home. I don't lie!" will result in the judge saying, "Oh, okay. I believe you then". Their lying and excuses always worked for them before so they think everyone is dumber than they are. Sadly, many people are. Case in point from above: If someone can sell a  POS Lincoln with 300K miles on it 😄to some idiot on faith, why wouldn't they think they are invincible?

[Bazinga]

Today's episode is from May 24, 2019.  I believe that there are only two posts that actually discuss this episode.  Discussion is on Page 134.

Car Kick Crisis

[CrazyInAlabama]

2018 rerun, "Car Kick Crisis" (I actually saw this one years ago). 

Case 1-Plaintiff stopped for defendant to cross to Dunkin Donuts, and when defendant didn't throw herself on the hood of plaintiff's car to thank plaintiff for allowing her to cross.   Plaintiff claims after she passed defendant, she stopped her car in the middle of the lane, got out and demanded a thank you.     Defendant says plaintiff didn't stop when she was yelling, and then plaintiff got out of her car, and claims the plaintiff threatened to beat her up.  Defendant escalated by saying "go ahead and kick me". 

Levin says "Judge ain't gonna glaze over this" (I really want to scream at Levin today).       

Plaintiff claims defendant kicked her car. Then defendant goes into the Dunkin, locks herself in the bathroom and calls 911.    JM says photo looks like a dent caused by a kick mark. Both litigants claim it's their first arrest.   Defendant claims before this confrontation happened, that two women she didn't know jumped her in a parking lot.   Defendant claims she didn't kick the car, or doesn't remember doing anything awful. 

Plaintiff wants payment for the damages, lawyers fee and time off from work. Defendant wants payment for two therapy appointments related to this incident, and the previous assault.  

Decision for plaintiff $2,016 for car damages , defendant case dismissed. 

Case 2-Plaintiff says defendant former roommate didn't pay the rent, and defendant's incontinent dog pooped and peed everywhere in the house.   Defendant says dog only pooped and peed when plaintiff locked dog in a hot room, and left dog.  Dog was supposed to go to defendant's barber shop, but defendant left the dog home. 

Plaintiff wants unpaid rent.   Also, damages from defendant's dog, who ripped out the doorjamb, and lots of drywall ripped.   Chewed the door knobs, chewed the drywall, ate the curtains, pooped and peed everywhere.   So, I'm calling the dog "Cujo" from now on.    Cujo the Pit Bull, as usual.  Fortunately, the plaintiff and wife didn't have kids, so they're not exposed to Cujo. 

Defendant never picked his stuff up, and it's still in the room and he still owes rent for that.  

Defendant has three days to pick up his stuff, or plaintiff can sell them after 72 hours pass.

Plaintiff gets $1,000 rent, and damages $3,100, total of $4100. 

In the hall-terview defendant claims the door knob damages weren't his dog's. 

Case 3-Plaintiff claims defendant side swiped her car, agreed to pay for damages, and didn't pay.   So, plaintiff will submit to her insurance company, and wants $2178.   

Defendant, as usual, claims his newly bought General Lee dodge didn't hit her car. 

Plaintiff claims defendant was in the left lane, she was going the same direction in the right lane, but stopped, and claims defendant sideswiped her entire driver's side.

Plaintiff's car is really damaged.   Defendant buffed his out. 

Plaintiff receives $2178 for car damages.

[AngelaHunter]

21 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant, as usual, claims his newly bought General Lee dodge didn't hit her car. 

I have zero memory of this case, although I see by Bazinga's reference I did see it. I was just overwhelmed anew with admiration for the Dukes of Hazzard lover's generosity of spirit which may even outweigh his stupidity.

He, like many before him, was willing to help and even pay part for the damage to someone's car even though he never EVER touched it.

People, take a lesson from General Lee and try to be good neighbours. I'm heading out right now to see if anyone on my street has dings or damage on their cars so I can pay for it, or at least direct them to "my guy". Of course, I know most body damage costs only about 50$ - 300$ so while I'm not sacrificing a lot monetarily, I will gain much in spirituality and the positive karma put into the world.

[CrazyInAlabama]

2018 rerun "Dog Attack Anger"

Case 1- Plaintiff Mr. Friedman and daughter, claim defendant's lab ran out of defendant's garage and attacked their dog, defendant Arthur Gurtman really doesn't care.  Plaintiffs want $5,000 for vet bills.   

Plaintiff daughter was walking Beagle Sweetie, 13-year-old, leashed and on sidewalk, and Labrador ran out and pushed Sweetie into the street, kept attacking and biting the poor Beagle.    Plaintiff daughter (24 years-old), says she's the only one that did anything (defendant's daughter was 15, and did nothing).    Then when defendant came out, he denied the dog was injured, took the Beagle inside his house, and plaintiff took dog to vet, and then emergency vet.    

Poor Sweetie died about 10 days later.    Lab was given back to shelter it came from, and I bet another family member adopted the dog on the spot.   Defendant denies he picked up Beagle, went inside his house, slamming the door in plaintiff daughter's face.   Defendant paid just about $1800, and says he can't pay more.  Bills added up to $6800, and $5,000 with the 1,800 payments. 

How nice of JM to say the 15 year-old who let the Lab out is not reponsible, and plaintiff daughter's freezing at first was just as bad.  

JM uses the excuse that Sweetie was older, and sick, and blames the other condition on the dog's death.   JM lets defendant loser off the hook.    So, now plaintiffs owe $5,000 but due to defendant's negligence they will owe the bill, and have no dog.   I agree with plaintiff wife, defendant says he got rid of Lab, but who knows.  Also, defendant admits the Lab was dog aggressive.  I bet the shelter (Oyster Bay) adopted that dog out again.  I dislike JM right now, she actually said spending more than the dog was worth on vet bills was a waste. 

After thinking about this case, I guess JM thought since the attack victim was older, the plaintiffs should have just let her bleed out, or die of infection because she wasn't worth saving?    That's pretty much what JM said.  The defendant knew his dog was dog aggressive, since the dog was from a rescue then I'm guessing it came with an attack history.      JM and the defendant's attitudes were despicable.  And JM claiming the defendant's daughter doing nothing, was the same as plaintiff daughter momentarily freezing was exactly the same was also despicable.    

Case 2-Plaintiff owns apartment next to defendant's apartment.  Plaintiff rented her apartment to defendant's employee, and she says the apartment was trashed.    Why is defendant's witness in full naval uniform (Two stripes, so LT I think).     Defendant rents huge boats for charters, like Uber for boats.     

Plaintiff lived next door to defendant, so his uniformed buddy was renting the plaintiff's apartment.   Apartment was rented from for 9 months, before plaintiff inspected apartment.    Plaintiff says floor was trashed, bathroom was disgusting, and she wants $2,000 for remediation to clean, get smoke smell removed.     Captain Crunch (the boat captain) says he smokes, but outside.    Plaintiff said painted had to repaint entire apartment twice, and remediation of the smoke smell, and cleaning was expensive. 

Plaintiff thought she was renting to one boat employee, not multiple.  In fact, plaintiff just found out in court that it was rented to multiple employees of defendant. Defendant blames everything on the hurricane. 

$2000 from defendant to plaintiff.   

Case 3-Plaintiff put down a deposit to rent an auto body shop from defendant, changed his mind three days later, and wants his deposit back.   I agree with defendant, plaintiff found another shop to rent at either a better price, better location, or both.   Defendant keeps the deposit.  

Edited September 20, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

18 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Captain Crunch (the boat captain) says he smokes, but outside.

😄 I so enjoyed this rerun, especially when Captain Clueless denied smoking in the place, then said, "Oh - well, sometimes."

You know the fast-talking little hustler def was charging a fee to all these "skippers" coming and going in that place and everyone treated it like a flophouse. I wish we had a video of the giant, volcano-like cloud of ash and dirt exploding from the son's suitcase and that made the whole place filthy and reeking. It was the hurricane that put that slimy coat of sludge only on the bottom of the shower curtain, deposited spots of filth on the carpet and made those dirt marks on the sofa.  Very particular hurricane!

I hope "I trusted him!" P learned a lesson from this:

1 - Always get a deposit against damage

2 - Draw up a contract and actually get it signed

3 - Never let total strangers occupy your home

4 - Let total strangers use your home and follow steps 1 and 2.

5 - Keep all fingers crossed.

[Bazinga]

Sorry I am late today.  Today's episode is from June 7, 2018.  Our prior discussion is on Page 109.

Dog Attack Anger

[CrazyInAlabama]

I'm not sure I'm ever watching this show again, after yesterday's reruns.     JM's ruling and comments were despicable, and cruel.  She obviously in only doing this for the paycheck.    I'm out. 

I might wait a while, or next season (starts in October), but I'm definitely not watching any more animal cases.    I thought JM being so out there with treating litigants with cruelty, but looking at the older cases, (I must not have watched them in 2018), she's been getting mean for a long time.    For one example, look at how she kept treating the grandmother who bought furniture for her granddaughter, and the granddaughter kept lying about how much she repaid.  JM kept saying the grandmother didn't remember, when my view was the granddaughter lied about repaying. 

Edited September 22, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[Bazinga]

Today's rerun episode is from June 15, 2018. 

The discussion is on Page 111. 

Link: Cousin Crisis

CrazyInAlabama said:

I'm out.

CrazyInAlabama, please don't go.  We need your summaries and insights.  I know I would miss your contributions.

Edited September 20, 2022 by Bazinga

[Bazinga]

Today's episode is from May 22, 2018.  Our discussion is on Page 108.

Direct Link: Check-Cashing Crisis

[Bookworm13]

On 9/20/2022 at 9:08 AM, CrazyInAlabama said:

I'm not sure I'm ever watching this show again, after yesterday's reruns.     JM's ruling and comments were despicable, and cruel.  She obviously in only doing this for the paycheck.    I'm out. 

We’ll miss you 💔

@Bazinga, thank you for posting links to the previous discussions of these cases. I’ve enjoyed going back to read what others thought after I’ve watched. 

[AngelaHunter]

On 9/20/2022 at 9:08 AM, CrazyInAlabama said:

I might wait a while, or next season (starts in October), but I'm definitely not watching any more animal cases. 

I have not watched any of those in a very long time. It's better that way. I also try to avoid feral litigants tearing each other apart in public and knocking out teeth in the presence of their carelessly spawned and traumatized kids.

I much prefer cases like Captain Clueless, whackos like Jen/Jan/Jane, the fantastic Jude, dumbass lawyers, idiots falling for scam emails, whiny millennials, or even shifty car dealers. None of those contain any innocent life forms being harmed, don't raise my blood pressure and often give me a good laugh.

I get what you're saying about JM. It's very annoying when she's biased towards girls of similar age of her precious darlings, like the repeat the other day when she told that nasty little viper who stiffed and libeled the Yoga clinic that she's "adorable".

[Bazinga]

Today's case, we are back in 2019, June 6, 2019 to be precise.  The episode is entitled "Griping Over Garbage."  Discussion is on Page 134.

Link:  Episode Discussion Here

Edited September 23, 2022 by Bazinga
Found the discussion. I was looking for the garbage removal case and that had no comments.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Bazinga said:

Today's case, we are back in 2019, June 6, 2019 to be precise.  The episode is entitled "Griping Over Garbage."  I don't see a discussion, but if there was one, it would be on Page 134.  Maybe I missed it.

It is indeed on pg.134. Even I recall this case with the modest, tender hothouse flower who sits in bars all night and shook down the goofy def for 10K to "relocate". Def bought her son, SKY, the building to play with (probably as a last resort to make him grow up). I guess he was too shy to show up here and stand by Momma.

https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court/page/134/#comments

There was also the repeat of the arrogant skinflint, Mr. Grossman, who refused to spend a few bucks to clean up the ton of construction trash and other debris left at the house he sold P, after Def's lawyer (or real estate agent?) promised in writing that it would be done. Mr. Grossman dropped in on P, unannounced, to "look at" the trash, but P had the gall to not be home for a visitor he never knew was coming. Grossman was rude and obnoxious to JM and she hated him a lot. P gets his 500$ and I believed him in the hall when he said it was more about principal. Grossman gets shown up as the nasty chisler he is.

Why can't we get more cases like these ones? They're fun.

[Maverick]

Even I remember the Case of the Timid Tarot Card Reader and I wasn't watching regularly pre-covid.   Part of why I remember it was because it was a case from California.  It was odd they'd fly people all the way across the country for a small claims case plus I remember JM mocking California laws.   As for the litigants, just ugh....where do they find these people.   The gall of suing someone because they were on the walkway of you apartment/not apartment.  As for top bun mommy and her last ditch effort to turn her son into a functioning adult (spoiler alert:  it didn't work), if only she had met JM years earlier she could have to her to spend a few bucks to buy a book (or a clue) about how to raise a child that's not coddled with apparently no ambition, marketable skills or the ability to take care of himself.   "Thanks, that's great advice."

[Bazinga]

Today's episode is conveniently from the day after the above episode, June 7, 2019.  I remember the defendants in the keyed car case and their nasty attitudes and lies.

The discussion is again on Page 134 and here is the direct link: 

You Scratched My Car

Edited September 24, 2022 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

"I just got out of incarcerated".

Our litigants all know the word "incarcerated" but using it in a sentence can be iffy.

[DoctorK]

14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Our litigants all know the word "incarcerated" but using it in a sentence can be iffy.

True, but at least she had the correct root word. I flinch more every time I hear that an argument "esculated".

[Percysowner]

On 9/19/2022 at 4:57 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

2018 rerun "Dog Attack Anger"

Case 1- Plaintiff Mr. Friedman and daughter, claim defendant's lab ran out of defendant's garage and attacked their dog, defendant Arthur Gurtman really doesn't care.  Plaintiffs want $5,000 for vet bills.   

Plaintiff daughter was walking Beagle Sweetie, 13-year-old, leashed and on sidewalk, and Labrador ran out and pushed Sweetie into the street, kept attacking and biting the poor Beagle.    Plaintiff daughter (24 years-old), says she's the only one that did anything (defendant's daughter was 15, and did nothing).    Then when defendant came out, he denied the dog was injured, took the Beagle inside his house, and plaintiff took dog to vet, and then emergency vet.    

Poor Sweetie died about 10 days later.    Lab was given back to shelter it came from, and I bet another family member adopted the dog on the spot.   Defendant denies he picked up Beagle, went inside his house, slamming the door in plaintiff daughter's face.   Defendant paid just about $1800, and says he can't pay more.  Bills added up to $6800, and $5,000 with the 1,800 payments. 

How nice of JM to say the 15 year-old who let the Lab out is not reponsible, and plaintiff daughter's freezing at first was just as bad.  

JM uses the excuse that Sweetie was older, and sick, and blames the other condition on the dog's death.   JM lets defendant loser off the hook.    So, now plaintiffs owe $5,000 but due to defendant's negligence they will owe the bill, and have no dog.   I agree with plaintiff wife, defendant says he got rid of Lab, but who knows.  Also, defendant admits the Lab was dog aggressive.  I bet the shelter (Oyster Bay) adopted that dog out again.  I dislike JM right now, she actually said spending more than the dog was worth on vet bills was a waste. 

After thinking about this case, I guess JM thought since the attack victim was older, the plaintiffs should have just let her bleed out, or die of infection because she wasn't worth saving?    That's pretty much what JM said.  The defendant knew his dog was dog aggressive, since the dog was from a rescue then I'm guessing it came with an attack history.      JM and the defendant's attitudes were despicable.  And JM claiming the defendant's daughter doing nothing, was the same as plaintiff daughter momentarily freezing was exactly the same was also despicable.    

The thing is, the defendant was right legally, dogs are property and you can't sue for more than the dog is worth, just like you can't sue for repairs over the value of a car. If he had paid nothing, I think JM would have given the plaintiffs most, if not all, of their vet bills as punitive damages. The reason most dog bite cases get money is because the defendants don't know their rights and don't claim that all they owe is the price of the dog. I admit, I would have dinged the guy because the Lab was dog aggressive, but the thing is, the man wouldn't have been the one on the hook, the daughter would have and I don't think JM wanted to make her feel any worse than she already did. It was a weird, close case with a defendant who knew what he was doing. JM tried to get the plaintiffs to say they wouldn't have continued treatment for their dog if they hadn't known the defendant wouldn't make good, because then they would have had a case for relying on his word to pay.

I'm sitting here with my sweet 9 year old beagle next to me, so I relate to the plaintiffs. JM's hands were tied by the law.

[Bazinga]

Today's rerun takes us to November 6, 2017 and is discussed on Page 68.

Here is the direct link:

Mercedes Smash Up

[AngelaHunter]

How I enjoyed the repeat of Mikey, the dull-eyed, meat-headed, stupid dimbo:

"He don't speak no English....he don't speak English correctly".

To anyone who thinks these cases are fake: NO ONE could make this funny shit up.

"I'll be honest with you. I was counting my money." Can't expect Mikey, with all his stacks and his giant, enormous truck to pay heed to some dinky, 650$ Mercedes.

Gee, I remember a Mercedes on this show that was completely derelict, broken down, and full of mice that was worth more.

[Bazinga]

Today, Sherman set the Wayback Machine to September 18, 2018.

Here is where we discussed the episode on Page 116:

Website Design Disaster

New post feature - In The News: The controversy surrounding Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court was the story of the day.

Edited September 27, 2022 by Bazinga

[Bazinga]

Today the WABAC Machine takes us to September 27, 2018.  The discussion is on Page 117.

Vegas Winning War

Still in the news, the Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation hearings. 

[aemom]

I FINALLY caught up, and I'm surprised that the new episodes haven't started yet and still won't be for a while. I feel like there were more new episodes last year because I don't usually fall that far behind. 

When I watch this show, I often think of all of you and can't wait to read the snarky commentary. That is honestly a lot of the fun of watching the show for me.

Looking forward to the upcoming season!

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, aemom said:

That is honestly a lot of the fun of watching the show for me.

Without this forum and all the funny, grade-A snark I might not see much point in even watching.

No one I know IRL watches it and just roll their eyes if I mention it. Instead of trying to justify my viewing habits, I got a great reponse to this from an episode of Sex and the City:  "Hey, it's my thing. Leave it alone."

Conversation over.

[aemom]

17 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

No one I know IRL watches it and just roll their eyes if I mention it.

I don't know anyone who watches it either, but I've learned a lot.

When we had to move my MIL out of her apartment, I took a lot of video of the place (slooooowwwwwwly), to show how we left it.

When hubby had to rent a car for work, he slowly walked around the car taking video of every little ding and mark - so he would have proof of anything in the future.

When I've been concerned about a delivery that arrived, I've taken a video of actually cutting open the box and unpacking it - so that there could be no doubt of what was in the box and the condition that it arrived.

If there is a contract for work, I make sure that anything that is relevant is written on the contract.

So it's actually quite educational!

I also learned that there are way too many desperate women out there whose kids will go without so that they can throw wads of money at loser men because they are too scared/desperate to be alone.

Also - there are too many dog owners with aggressive breeds that don't give a fig newton what their dogs do to other dogs and/or people.

Edited September 29, 2022 by aemom
Typo, because spelling is important

[Bazinga]

Today's rerun is from June 20, 2019.  Discussion can be found on Page 135. 

Birthday Blowout

In the News: Slow news day; nothing worth mentioning.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, aemom said:

I don't know anyone who watches it either, but I've learned a lot.

I've also learned a lot.  One of the most important rules is to never EVER look for goods or services on CL or "FleaBay" and do not try to find your soulmate on Grindr, FB Meatmarket or other romance-oriented sites rife with scammers, kooks, and/or serial killers.

After hearing all about the ill-fated romances struck up on CL, I decided to take a look at what's on offer in my area, to see what our litigants find so appealing. The results were a little disappointing:
 

Quote

© craigslist - Map data © OpenStreetMap

6'2 Male Big guy Clean and Alone..my place.

Lets get together tonight.

Okay, that's kind of romantic, right?🤔 Let's see what else is on offer.
 

Quote

© craigslist - Map data © OpenStreetMap

(google map)

If any ladies are interested in snow shovelling services tomorrow I would be more than happy to come assist you and hope we can role play you not being able to pay me cash but other services could be arranged....

6'1
180lbs
White

😬 Next!
 

Quote

on the smaller side (belleville)

© craigslist - Map data © OpenStreetMap

hopefully a smaller tool will do i try to make up for it

The smaller tool is not nearly as disconcerting as the inability to use basic punctuation.

[Bazinga]

Today's rerun is from June 21, 2019 and is discussed on Page 136.

Here is the link:

Ditching a Loan

[cinsays]

15 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Today's rerun is from June 21, 2019 and is discussed on Page 136.

Here is the link:

Ditching a Loan

so she had to pay $300 extra for a $200 loan? that may not technically be usury for whatever the judge said but it still seems unjust and should be illegal

[AngelaHunter]

10 hours ago, cinsays said:

so she had to pay $300 extra for a $200 loan? that may not technically be usury for whatever the judge said but it still seems unjust and should be illegal

What I got from that, and of course I could be wrong, is that since it was a penalty and not interest, and def agreed to pay the penalty there is nothing illegal about it? Of all the dumb stuff P did (loaning money to a degenerate gambler?), that seems to be the only smart thing.

[Bazinga]

Today's episode was originally aired on January 23, 2018.  The discussion is on Page 94. 

The direct link is here:

Electrical Disaster

I miss SR Touch's episode recaps. 

On this Day: Neil Diamond retired from touring and Hugh Masekela ("Grazing in the Grass") died.

Edited October 3, 2022 by Bazinga

[CrazyInAlabama]

I just saw a commercial for TPC, saying Thursday's episode is 2 May 2019 "Nightmare Neighbor", Season 22, Episode 119.  Where the upstairs condo neighbor screams and rants constantly,  recaps start on 132,   Irina, the exorcist clone upstairs neighbor scares me, and she's only a person on a screen.   

 I can't imagine having to live with her wailing and screaming.    The good news is someone last time this aired says she was a phlebotomist in Russia, or wherever she came from, and no one thinks she could possibly be employed drawing blood on helpless patients here.    I swear we had more disccusion of this one, but I can't find it right now. 

Edited October 3, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

I started to rewatch the ludicrous case of the silly cow, here suing her tiny, sit-com nerd ex-lover who looks about 13, for some old used laptop. The silly cow let the excitable wee nerd climb aboard and he somehow managed to impregnate her. This would all be laughable except that some child will have to go through life calling these two misfits "my parents". There ought to be a law.