The People's Court - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Paperclips said:

I've had a shower door - PITA.  Get a shower curtain.

A contractor case! The plaintiff, with her bad nose job, her problematic SJW glasses, and her passion for her "aesthetic", which would be ruined by a different pipe on the showerhead which would direct the stream of water away from the new frameless shower door was likewise a big PITA. She felt these frameless shower doors should block a torrent of water aimed directly at them. I have a boring shower curtain (my aesthetic sucks) and I know if I aimed my shower head at them there is a chance the water could get through any gaps and my floor would get wet.

P must also must be a fan of "form over function" since I would be more concerned with the crooked, shitty tile job that has the shower curb slanted away from the shower and into the room. Still, she wanted back every cent of the money she paid the contractor, who appeared to be testifying in his bathroom which I guess was appropriate. JM gives the big, "My father/brother, etc are contractors" speech. P got 200$ and I thought that was generous since removing the showerhead and changing the pipe takes approx 8 minutes and costs 20$.

Then we unfortunately go to "faux locs" where the P wanted a huge mass of "locs" installed on her dome. They seemed to reach down past her butt and took 7 or 8 hours to install, with D asking along the way, "Is that okay"? yet P never thought about the weight of this enormous pile of hair -  which for the price she paid I'm thinking must be polypropylene or some other faux material -  said it gives her headaches so wants her 350$ back.

I kept FFing, so may have missed something. She texted D asking if she would, for the sake of customer relations, remove this installation for free. After sending that, she admits she immediately blocked def, who sent a reply 10 minutes later saying she would and which P, of course, never saw. Perhaps all that hair or whatever it was messed up her brain waves. Duh.

Def is countersuing. Why? "Just because..." JM gets a chuckle out of that and they both leave with nothing, well, except for what the show pays them.

[Bazinga]

6 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

and her passion for her "aesthetic", which would be ruined by a different pipe on the showerhead which would direct the stream of water away from the new frameless shower door

I think there was a misunderstanding in this case because of the plaintiff's use of the word "aesthetic."  The plaintiff, I think, was not complaining the defendant's suggestion of a pipe away from the door ruined her aesthetic (the look or style she was going for) but that this was a work around fix or an eternal fix.  She wanted the door to be fixed by the defendant; for the door to stop the water or most of the water from leaking, not to use the shower in a certain manner (for plaintiff, an "aesthetic" solution).  Yes, that is a totally wrong use of the word aesthetic.  Just my interpretation.

I also think Judge Milian was wrong about the defendant's liability.  Should there not have been a showing of what he did wrong in installing the door to cause a lot of water to leak not you only disclaimed that there would be some leakage and this was more than some and that he didn't bring up the solution prior to install but after (he didn't know it was going to leak so much).  Water pointing at a door that is not a tight seal is going to leak.  It's a dumb set up but it was not his dumb set up that caused the problem.  I don't think defendant did anything wrong to be out $200.

Not a fan of the 'I am the daughter and sister of a contractor and I have done this many times myself, so I am the expert, so don't try to tell me anything' speech always being trotted out in contractor cases.  Don't like the I know-it-all vibe of it.

Edited November 29, 2022 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

First case with more entrepreneurs with champagne tastes and a beer budget was boring. I spent the time trying to figure out what P had tatted on her face. Part of it looked like she'd been mauled by a wildcat. Not sure about the rest.

2nd: Ms. Marci is a dumb liar, like most crooks. She took her old beater to P for a new engine. P mechanic sent her a list of engines from which to choose. She picked the cheapest engine and it didn't work. In the meantime, P also did an oil change and a bunch of other work on the heap. Marci was supposed to pay 1350$ for everything, which seems cheap to me. They have to wait for another engine to come in and no one knows when, since they are waiting for the junkyard to get another suitable one.

Ms. Marci is peeved, first because P didn't agree to pad the bill so she could get some cash profit from the repair with her insurance, and second because she didn't get her car back in a timely fashion even though it's not P's fault. P has enough of her and tells her if she just pays 500$ for everything he did she can come get her car and take it elsewhere.

The best part is Marci provides a taped phone call to prove she's right to do what she did, which was to take her car back in the middle of the night. How dumb is Marci? We hear her saying to P, "So if I pay the 500$ I can come pick up the car?" P replies, "Yes. Do you have the 500$?" Marci assures him she does and she will bring it. Instead, she goes in the wee hours with a tow truck and steals her car without paying even a dime. This was HER evidence. "It wasn't driveable", says Marci, which I guess she thought meant she could pay zero. Marci is a dummy.

P was annoying with his basically basically basically basically basically and topped it off with "The argument was on basically February 17th". JM calls Marci a liar and a thief but Marci cannot understand why and countersues for 1K for her inconvenience. Nice try, scammer. JM awards P the entire 1350$ and not just 500$ because Marci broke the agreement and is a liar and a crook.

In the hall she informs Doug that "I don't appreciate being spoken to that way". As we used to say in olden times, "That and a nickel will get you a ice cream cone". I know ice cream cones are probably mimimum 5$ these days, but oh, well.

We get a "viewer question" that starts, "Hey, Judge Milian!" I guess Levin didn't get the memo that this not an appropriate way to address a judge?

Also from Levin: "Words matter." Thank you, Levin, for that incredibly astute observation. What would I do without your words of wisdom to guide me in my path?

Edited November 29, 2022 by AngelaHunter

[AngelaHunter]

My PVR and CC seem to have become self-aware or imprinted on me. That's probably highly unscientific since I don't know what the hell I'm talking about BUT:

I sat down, happily hoping for anything (other than dogs, careless breeding and utility bills) but what I got, which was "My wig had too much oil on it!" Trust me, ladies - oily wigs are the least of your problems and the worst part is you don't even know that. I start the FF, got the Dreaded Pink Screen and then the tail end of an ep of Hot Bench. For once I was okay with that screw up. I think PVR was trying to protect me. I appreciate that but trust me, PVR - I had no intention of watching that dumb shit. I've lost enough brain cells to date. I just regret I missed Levin's Daily Words of Wisdom and his "Hey, Judges!"

[Bazinga]

Case one for me was joined in progress due to soccer. 

Case two was about two former current (IMO, based on their looks, speech and mannerisms) drug addict lowlifes who were platonically living together fighting over furniture, clothes and jewelry, when defendant kicked the plaintiff out when he found a coke straw.  The defendant said plaintiff abandoned but he did not allow her to pick up her possessions.  Awful twosome.  Plaintiff could not prove the value of her "brand new" clothes and Gucci watch, so rough justice was done by JM.  Boring yet trashy case you would be glad to have missed. 

It's available here (it's not a great upload; audio is not in sync with the video and video is oddly chopped up, but you can follow the audio) if you want to confirm my assessment. 

Hair Horror 

Edited November 30, 2022 by Bazinga

[Guest]

Love the comment:  All that makeup on those ladies look fake. 

My comment:  Ya think?  Hurry genius, the Mensa meeting can’t start without you. 
 

ETA:  The comment I’m referring to is taken from the link Bazinga provided.  Evidently you have an option to comment on the case.  I just wanted to clear that up. 

Edited December 1, 2022 by PsychoKlown

[AngelaHunter]

22 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

It's available here if you want to confirm my assessment. 

Wow. Thanks, I think. Just took a pic at these participants and feel your assessment is 100% kerreck. Downloaded to watch later.

[rcc]

49 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

Case one for me was joined in progress due to soccer. 

Case two was about two former current (IMO, based on their looks, speech and mannerisms) drug addict lowlifes who were platonically living together fighting over furniture, clothes and jewelry, when defendant kicked the plaintiff out when he found a coke straw.  The defendant said plaintiff abandoned but he did not allow her to pick up her possessions.  Awful twosome.  Plaintiff could not prove the value of her "brand new" clothes and Gucci watch, so rough justice was done by JM.  Boring yet trashy case you would be glad to have missed. 

It's available here (it's not a great upload; audio is not in sync with the video and video is oddly chopped up, but you can follow the audio) if you want to confirm my assessment. 

Hair Horror 

No thanks I believe you.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Love the comment:  All that makeup on those ladies look fake. 

My comment:  Ya think?  Hurry genius, the Mensa meeting can’t start without you. 
 

ETA:  The comment I’m referring to is taken from the link Bazinga provided.  Evidently you have an option to comment on the case.  I just wanted to clear that up. 

Your comment seems to have been removed? Maybe it was considered too triggering for non-MENSA members? YT has turned into a Hug Chair environment, where we are not permitted to see any down votes lest they hurt someone's feelies and damage their psyches.

But yeah - pretty much everything on those "ladies" looked fake. I will assume that is so.

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Plaintiff could not prove the value of her "brand new" clothes and Gucci watch, so rough justice was done by JM. 

I have nothing but admiration for Kimberly! After serving a year in the slammer for her 4th DUI, she bunks in with her great good friend,  the wrecked-looking Def, Peter,  and managed to have stuff worth 5K - a Gucci watch, a 600$ necklace, a 50" TV - no, a 55", a new bedroom set and all new clothes that are worth exactly 2,159.00$. JM wants to know how she knows that precise figure with no receipts. "It's just a guesstimation". 🙄  No, it's a number she came up with that she thought JM might buy. At least try to make it sound legit and round it off.

When she buggers off, for whatever reason (Hallclown says she couldn't take Pete's "oppressive rules"? More oppressive than those in prison? I don't know) she simply cannot take the watch, the jewelry or the clothes with her. Peter, who is even more of a mess than Kimberly says he threw everything out, but changes it to "some people came and got most of it"(yeah, we know he sold it) and is probably using the bedroom set, nodding out on Kimmy's nearly-new 499.99$ mattress/box spring set with his significant other.

The worst part is they both have kids who I'm sure had wonderful lives growing up with drugged-up dregs of society for parents.

The YT vid is wonky and I liked the quick cuts to Douglas cracking up during all this.

Just for giggles I took a look at the Gucci store. The cheapest watch I saw on the page is 1300$. I don't have a Gucci watch (or a 55" TeeVee or a closet full of brand-new clothes) and I'm not even a druggie drunk who got my ass locked up for a year. Kimberly, what is the secret of your success?

[Guest]

17 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I have nothing but admiration for Kimberly! After serving a year in the slammer for her 4th DUI, she bunks in with her great good friend,  the wrecked-looking Def, Peter,  and managed to have stuff worth 5K - a Gucci watch, a 600$ necklace, a 50" TV - no, a 55", a new bedroom set and all new clothes that are worth exactly 2,159.00$. 

Kimberly, what is the secret of your success?

After reading your exquisite post an idea just floated through my head.  

A Coffee-Table Book.  

The book would have the (just spitballing here) top fifty cases that annoyed, enraged and   even left us speechless.  Also included, pictures and commentary from the posters here and maybe even a few updates.  Who knows, the one contestant who bragged about twelve kids might now be waaaay past that.  

And we'd definitely need an introductory paragraph from Doug.  

It's all here.  A million dollar idea.  It just needs someone to run with it.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

After reading your exquisite post an idea just floated through my head.  

A Coffee-Table Book.  

This is brilliant. Simply brillant. I will run with it. We need to begin right away in time for the Holiday Shopping Season. 🎄

If you can borrow me the money... I mean "give" me the money... I mean "invest" in this project I'll get started immediately. I'll send texxas right away to JM and Doug to get permission to quote them, i.e. "Awful people...thieves, liars... you're a fool",  and from Doug, "The exit is that way... The judge really gave it to you, didn't she?" etc.

I'm so excited. I can just picture the glowing reviews when we list on Amazon, e.g.

[Maverick]

 I haven't been able to watch much lately.   So we're back to all remote cases?   Ok then.  At least we don't have to have those odd Doug (sorta) halterviews.

 Now even remodeling cases someone end up being about dead pets.   And cockroach infestations.  Someone call the ASPCA on these people.  D was very...open about his sordid past and how he has single-handedly rehabilitated himself and that's why P's Facebook lies have angered him so. 

 Case 2 - Rosie Perez found a planner on the internet for an impromptu wedding, fiance tells her she shouldn't have booked planner without a contract, Rosie cancels and D says "No" to a refund.   If you'd like to get blackout drunk for because of the show, or any reason really, take a swig every time you hear "my man." 

[AngelaHunter]

3 minutes ago, Maverick said:

Now even remodeling cases someone end up being about dead pets.   And cockroach infestations. 

I was ready to click off after hearing 'dog', but it's not so bad, considering. Def bummed 1600$ from P for vet care. Sadly the dog had cancer and had to be euthanized.

The P, sitting somewhere in her granny's house that looks like the musty, creepy, eerie basement of a Victorian-era Museum of Lost Toys wanted Def to renovate her bathroom and add a walk-in tub after some accident she had. He makes a mess of things, quits, and gives no money back to P. JM wants to why he didn't finish. He launches into a tirade about P's horrible, cockroach infested dump, full of "biohazards" and how she sent her 300lb son in to "micromanage" his work, so the small room got too crowded.

The hyper-excitable Def wraps up his defense with a heartfelt, endless soliloquy and platitudes about his sordid past which included a (probably more than one) stint in the Big House and how he's now the greatest, most wonderful, big-hearted person who ever lived, who would do anything for anyone, (except pay his debts and do the job for which he was paid) and how he goes to church - he's sporting a rather large cross around his neck. Too bad he's a liar and a cheat, but oh well - no one is perfect.

He says P insisted on paying for the dog's care - that it was a gift to him and his ragged girlfriend but says in texxes to her that he's not paying her back because "I'm broke". I guess his 24/7 acts of Good Samaritanism, altruism, and charity work leave him no time to earn money. P defamed him on good ol' FB by saying he owes her money and won't pay her back. I was told the truth is an absolute defense to libel. P gets some of her money back and her bathroom is still a disaster after 2 years.

I have a feeling only a Hazmat-suited team with flamethrowers and a bulldozer could improve her dwelling.

15 minutes ago, Maverick said:

If you'd like to get blackout drunk for because of the show, or any reason really, take a swig every time you hear "my man." 

OMG. Rosie's "man" had the right idea when he called the wedding off. He should have stuck to his guns. That woman is unbearable with a voice that could strip paint and looks like some sort of early prototype A.I.

[Guest]

Maverick and AngelaHunter your posts have me laughing so hard I think I pulled a muscle in my back.  I could actually hear Doug saying “the judge really gave it to you, didn’t she”?  Double snort.  And the term “my man” sounds so skeevy - like something a Kardashian would say because they have so many men they can’t remember all their names. As soon as I hit submit reply I’m heading for the Advil. 

There is one statement from the pious contractor that no one mentioned.  He was talking about his generous nature (no doubt honed while in the slammer) and actually said “I’ll even give money to my enemies”.  Wow.  Thinking this guy might make a spot in the top fifty of the book. 

And the mention of cockroaches makes me think that it wouldn’t be too over the top to include a separate appendix about cockroaches, lice, mold and the ever popular bed bugs card that is played in any landlord/tenant dispute. 

So much material…so little time. 

[Maverick]

 The Sainted Ex-Con's girlfriend was a pip too.  "I gave her 4 cigarettes last week because I'm not trying to be like that."    Such a giver.  How is there room in that house for such sainted egos (and previously a large dog)?   There's a place in heaven for those who give out addictive, cancer causing substances.  Enjoy the reek of stale smoke that will drift to your house, since you're "pocket neighbors"...whatever that means.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

actually said “I’ll even give money to my enemies”.

Ah, that's why he's broke.

47 minutes ago, Maverick said:

The Sainted Ex-Con's girlfriend was a pip too.  "I gave her 4 cigarettes last week because I'm not trying to be like that." 

I forgot that one! Philanthropists, both of them!😆

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

 And the term “my man” sounds so skeevy - like something a Kardashian would say because they have so many men they can’t remember all their names.

Isn't there a song called, "That Man of Mine"? You two have me cracking up more than Douglas does when he's listening to particularly moronic dingbats trying to justify the nutty things they do.

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

 Thinking this guy might make a spot in the top fifty of the book. 

We need to get whoever writes the captions under the litigants on JJ to do ours:

"Says 300lb son hindered his work".

"Denies her house is roach-infested".

"Says she gave plaintiff four cigarettes".

Edited December 2, 2022 by AngelaHunter
because "Philanthropist" is one word

[AngelaHunter]

Honestly, these people... is it not possible to attend a funeral, a baby shower, a child's birthday,  a wedding or to visit a dying, hospitalized relative without an altercation of some sort breaking out? But I get it. When someone says something I don't like, even if I don't hear or know what was said I automatically grab anything within reach to throw it at them. Ugh.

2nd: JM decided to give a judgment to the P, whose lies didn't quite reach the level of the Def's lies. P's 14-year-old Lexus was at Def's shop for repairs. He's told to come get the car which was left outside for him with the keys in it. It gets stolen and stripped. Those catalytic converters seem to be worth their weight in gold. Def says it was only out there for about 15 or 20 minutes so he doesn't understand how it got stolen. Durr. Talking to the defs was like talking to a brick wall, both because of a language barrier and their evasiveness.

P gets 12K for the car from insurance but that's not quite enough so he's here, not only trying to double dip by getting paid again for the tires on the car, but claiming he left 5K of shit in the trunk - pricey sound system, PS5, some high-tech air pump, etc. JM wants to know why the PS5 was in the trunk? Well, he was going to play with his homies so just threw it in the trunk on Valentine's day. JM also wants to know why he was playing with his homies and not getting something for his girlfriend (I doubt she exists) on that special day of romance. OH, he just remembered - he did have something for her, also thrown in the trunk. It was a crystal ball with a rose in it, worth 35$.

When asked for any reciepts of all these valuables in his trunk P says he has them, but not in front of him at this time. Turns out he, unlike other lying litigants didn't need them anyway. He has zero evidence that there was anything at all in his car, but for some reason JM gives him over 1,000$.

Kind of a crummy end to the week.

[rcc]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Honestly, these people... is it not possible to attend a funeral, a baby shower, a child's birthday,  a wedding or to visit a dying, hospitalized relative without an altercation of some sort breaking out? But I get it. When someone says something I don't like, even if I don't hear or know what was said I automatically grab anything within reach to throw it at them. Ugh.

2nd: JM decided to give a judgment to the P, whose lies didn't quite reach the level of the Def's lies. P's 14-year-old Lexus was at Def's shop for repairs. He's told to come get the car which was left outside for him with the keys in it. It gets stolen and stripped. Those catalytic converters seem to be worth their weight in gold. Def says it was only out there for about 15 or 20 minutes so he doesn't understand how it got stolen. Durr. Talking to the defs was like talking to a brick wall, both because of a language barrier and their evasiveness.

P gets 12K for the car from insurance but that's not quite enough so he's here, not only trying to double dip by getting paid again for the tires on the car, but claiming he left 5K of shit in the trunk - pricey sound system, PS5, some high-tech air pump, etc. JM wants to know why the PS5 was in the trunk? Well, he was going to play with his homies so just threw it in the trunk on Valentine's day. JM also wants to know why he was playing with his homies and not getting something for his girlfriend (I doubt she exists) on that special day of romance. OH, he just remembered - he did have something for her, also thrown in the trunk. It was a crystal ball with a rose in it, worth 35$.

When asked for any reciepts of all these valuables in his trunk P says he has them, but not in front of him at this time. Turns out he, unlike other lying litigants didn't need them anyway. He has zero evidence that there was anything at all in his car, but for some reason JM gives him over 1,000$.

Kind of a crummy end to the week.

JM should never have given him a dime. He obviously was lying about the stuff in the trunk. 

[Guest]

13 hours ago, rcc said:

JM should never have given him a dime. He obviously was lying about the stuff in the trunk. 

Agree completely.  He was lying.  We've been going to the same dealership for twenty three years and I still check my jeep before handing it over for an oil change or repair.  It's just something responsible people do.  Granted, I don't carry x-boxes, Gucci watches, or coach purses in my vehicle but sometimes a water bottle or candy wrapper is tucked in the console and I don't want the mechanics to think I'm a pig or that I drive a dirty car.  My mother was convinced  that if you didn't wash your vehicle before a yearly inspection they wouldn't pass it.  I think it's in our family genes.  

But, that being said...he claimed he had receipts but just didn't have them with him.  Why didn't she pull that stunt of hers where she gives the contestant a week to come up the receipts?  My guess is that she despised the defendants more than she didn't believe the plaintiff.  1k to the least offensive.

Ain't the US Legal System grand?

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

 Granted, I don't carry x-boxes, Gucci watches, or coach purses in my vehicle

No emerald rings, 50" TVs, diamond necklaces, iPads/iPhone, or 5K worth of custom leather jackets? Those are the things I carry in my trunk. In garbage bags.

Actually I don't remove anything from my car when I take it in for service. I trust the mechanics can resist the urge to pilfer my ice scraper, 3 bungee cords, a ratty trunk organizer, two less-than-pristine dollar store shopping bags, and a dinky "emergency" kit I got free from Toyota.

I'm waiting for the next plaintiff to claim stolen items, tell JM their receipts are in another room, and get awarded damages anyway.

[Bazinga]

JM didn't even ask for the receipts for the items in the car, the receipts he didn't have were for a prior repair to figure out if the mechanic was employed by the repair shop owner.  Actually made sense for the plaintiff to not have those on him as he would not have seen how that related to this case.

Plaintiff had no proof his valuables were even in the trunk, and did not prove their value, nor was he asked to.  $1,000 for a USED Playstation 5 and an air pump seems to be high even by "rough justice" standards, especially with no proof.  I guess the plaintiff was not a landlord doing repairs that needed to be nickel and dimed.   

Edited December 4, 2022 by Bazinga

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

JM didn't even ask for the receipts for the items in the car, the receipts he didn't have were for a prior repair to figure out if the mechanic was employed by the repair shop owner.  Actually made sense for the plaintiff to not have those on him as he would not have seen how that related to this case.

Plaintiff had no proof his valuables were even in the trunk, and did not prove their value, not was he asked to.  $1,000 for a USED Playstation 5 and an air pump seems to be high even by "rough justice" standards, especially with no proof.  I guess the plaintiff was not a landlord doing repairs that needed to be nickle and dimed.   

Thanks. I misunderstood her request for receipts. 

And hell yeah 1k sounds pretty high for rough Justice.  Still think she hated the lying plaintiff less than the conniving, oily defendants. 

[AngelaHunter]

54 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

Plaintiff had no proof his valuables were even in the trunk, and did not prove their value, not was he asked to

My mistake. I thought she asked for receipts for any of the items that were in the trunk. P should have said he had a Gucci watch and 500$ sneakers in there too.

[Bazinga]

A week (probably through the new year) of reruns begins today.

Today's episode is from September 11, 2018 (season 22 episode 7).  This means that Harvey's street idiots and the audience is here.  It was not a particularly interesting episode. 

This episode was discussed on Page 114.  I miss SRTouch.

Here is the link: Fiance Fireworks

Edited December 5, 2022 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

46 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

Today's episode is from September 11, 2018 (season 22 episode 7).  This means that Harvey's street idiots and the audience is here.  It was not a particularly interesting episode. 

Wow. As I was watching this episode of Dr. Phil  TPC where this wintry romance and wedding were called off over open cabinet doors and clothes not hung up, I had no idea I'd seen it before.

So now we get two months of new eps and 10 months of reruns? Blah.

[Bazinga]

Today's rerun is from September 3, 2018 and is discussed on page 113.  It is the premiere episode of season 22.

Here is the direct link:

Mold Mayhem

[AngelaHunter]

10 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Today's rerun is from September 3, 2018 and is discussed on page 113.

Did they have to give us that silly mold-boi repeat with his stupid babbling and finally admitting he wouldn't go a doctor for his terrible "stacked" mold-induced illnesses because it might mess up his workman's comp? What a twerp.

[Bazinga]

This week's reruns have been awful.  I was actually falling asleep watching today.  PC reruns are usually repeats of episodes that weren't even interesting the first time they were shown.  What's worse are when the reruns are recent from just a month or so prior.

I would love to know the criteria for choosing reruns, and why they seem to center on episodes from around the same time period? 

Why not go back to early JM PC episodes, or "best of" episodes, with particularly interesting cases or litigants, or JM being especially good? 

It just seems like they are picking a 'dirty shirt out of the hamper' just because it is there and showing it with no real effort to be interesting or entertaining.  To me, seems like it would be easy to choose and show actually interesting episodes from the past.  Perhaps a contest where the audience can suggest episodes or particular cases from the past on Facebook (not that I would participate, but I am sure others would).  Anything would be better than the reruns typically shown. 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Bazinga

[seacliffsal]

On 12/3/2022 at 9:59 AM, PsychoKlown said:

 Granted, I don't carry x-boxes, Gucci watches, or coach purses in my vehicle receipts?  

On 12/3/2022 at 11:13 AM, AngelaHunter said:

No emerald rings, 50" TVs, diamond necklaces, iPads/iPhone, or 5K worth of custom leather jackets?

On 12/3/2022 at 2:14 PM, AngelaHunter said:

 P should have said he had a Gucci watch and 500$ sneakers in there too.

Oh, wait a minute...you mean that I should NOT be carrying all of my valuables in the trunk of the car when I take it to the car wash or for repairs? (smacks head) now you all tell me; right after I had filed a civil court case for the loss of all of my valuables after getting an oil check.  Unfortunately I can only sue for the state maximum of $10,000, but believe me they were worth a lot more than that!  And, what a coincidence, my receipts were all in the trunk too!!!...

[Katy M]

47 minutes ago, seacliffsal said:

Oh, wait a minute...you mean that I should NOT be carrying all of my valuables in the trunk of the car when I take it to the car wash or for repairs? (smacks head) now you all tell me; right after I had filed a civil court case for the loss of all of my valuables after getting an oil check.  Unfortunately I can only sue for the state maximum of $10,000, but believe me they were worth a lot more than that!  And, what a coincidence, my receipts were all in the trunk too!!!...

When I steal brand new stuff that is basically still in the shopping bag, I always look for the receipt so that I can leave it behind.  I also wrote "I stole this, sincerely, a robber,"  I mean, sure I've turned to a life of crime, but that doesn't mean I don't want to provide every opportunity for my victims to be able to collect insurance or whatever.

[AngelaHunter]

Don't forget to leave your money orders in the glove compartment when you go to the car wash!

Maybe it was only for 150$ but jack it up to 1500$ in your complaint. Go to court on a "No Evidence Needed" day when flapping gums provide irrefutable proof and you'll get that amount for sure.

[Bazinga]

Unlike the previous two episodes, this repeat is actually a good one.  It is from September 10, 2018, the day before Monday's episode and a week after yesterday's episode.

There was plenty of discussion about these three cases.  Here is the direct link to page 114:

Nail Salon Scam

[CrazyInAlabama]

2 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Unlike the previous two episodes, this repeat is actually a good one.  It is from September 10, 2018, the day before Monday's episode and a week after yesterday's episode.

There was plenty of discussion about these three cases.  Here is the direct link to page 114:

Nail Salon Scam

This is one of the cases I watched then.   I hate that the heifer in the first case, and that her talentless daughter received $32, they should have received nothing. 

In the second case, how despicable that the local authorities believed the delusional defendant, and took the plaintiff's guns.   I feel so sorry for the plaintiff, his son was dying during the harassment by defendant, and the judge pretty much believed defendant and her ridiculous claims.    I hope defendant couldn't find another caretaker for her cottage, and a tree committed ritual Hara Kiri or Seppuku (however it's spelled) on her house in the next hurricane, while she was up north at her winter place.   I would have given the handyman $5,000 for harassment by BSC defendant.   Defendant's porch tiles aren't the only thing that's cracked in this case. 

(cases with litigants like Miss future Oscar winner, and her awful mother are why I'm so glad that Doug isn't in the hall with the litigants any longer.    I'm wondering how many litigants were hustled out the door after the case by security?)   

Edited December 7, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

55 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 I hate that the heifer in the first case, and that her talentless daughter received $32, they should have received nothing. 

'I went to the doctor! I had to use ointment and take Tylenol for the excruciating pain! I missed out on my 10K modeling job 😆 because of the horrible suffering and mutiliation I endured with what was essentially a paper cut on my pinky! Look at my scars!" 

I quite enjoyed rewatching this mostly for the utterly shameless money-grubbing, and the very best part was evil-eyed Reptile Mommy in the hall, insulting JM and Doug telling her, "You better leave".

I did not enjoy the monstrous Hurricane Harridan/Hag who made me want to slap her silly so I skipped that.

58 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 I would have given the handyman $5,000 for harassment by BSC defendant.

Agree.

[Bazinga]

Still mining the same time period for repeats; today's episode is from September 12, 2018 and was discussed on pages 114 and 115.  The first case - defendants' 19 year old son shooting arrows at neighbor's business - was the one that engendered the most discussion.

Nasty Neighbor

Edited December 8, 2022 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

I did watch the fence fight - "It's my property!" "No, it's MY property!" JM: "Who has a survey?" Both litigants: "Duh. Just take our words for it. It's mine/mine".

But I do always wonder with these cases - are those cinderblock fences or walls popular only in CA and nearby states? I never knew such a thing existed until I watched these court shows. Does anyone here have a wall like this?

[Bazinga]

Today's episode is from September 19, 2018 and is discussed on page 116.  Here is the direct link:

Friendship Ruined Over an Accident

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Today's episode is from September 19, 2018 and is discussed on page 116.  Here is the direct link:

Friendship Ruined Over an Accident

It's so weird. I only remembered the shocking, monstrous Trio (or quartet?) of the Disabled, and still have no memory of the other two cases in your link, so I ending up watching them all - the first just for the sheer WTF-ery of it all and the other two since they were new to me.

[Bazinga]

Today's repeat is from the same time period as last week.  It is from September 25, 2018 and is discussed on page 117. 

SRTouch's recap was good but meowmommy's comment

Quote

Thanks for the great recaps, SRTouch, but it's two days in a row where the cases are too boring even to snark about.

sums the episode up.  Only thing worthwhile is the discussion of Levin's "bumper, he hardly knew her" (cough) "joke" (choke).

Here is the direct link:

War Over Wages

Edited December 12, 2022 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

I didn't really recall the first case of the big time operator who doesn't bother with records, taxes and all that mundane, petty shit, being sued by a former employee, I  mean "independant contractor" (yeah, sure). Joining the latest crop of litigants who seemingly ask for the "Mr. Ed Special" for their veneers or dentures, I wondered if Def requested "The Broccoli" at his hair salon.

Anyway, def likes to drive and Zoom call at the same time. JM is furious. "You're not that important!" she snarks and I silently add, "Who do you think you are - Harvey Levin?"

[Welshman in Ca]

16 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Anyway, def likes to drive and Zoom call at the same time. JM is furious. "You're not that important!" she snarks and I silently add, "Who do you think you are - Harvey Levin?"

Except this was 2018 and Zoom wasn't really a commonly used app which makes it worse as it must have been Skype or some such other crappy app that was around then.

[Bazinga]

We have now jumped to October 3, 2018.  (In reading back the forum discussion, the episode from the day prior, October 2, 2018, "Rental Ruckus", where the Judge fawns over and wants to be friends and hang out with an uncaring, obnoxious, disrespectful, lying girl, would have been better, but I don't see that one scheduled for this week.  Maybe next week, please, so I can get riled up about it all over again.)  

The discussion of today's episode is on page 118.  The direct link:

Exes' Bank Account Battle

Edited December 13, 2022 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, Bazinga said:

The discussion of today's episode is on page 118.  The direct link:

Exes' Bank Account Battle

Thanks. I had to go back and check if I had seen this and turns out I had not.

Can someone tell what on earth is so captivating about the schmoopy, dopey Joshua that he keeps getting fairly good-looking girlfriends, other than that he gives them unfettered access to his bank accounts? Okay, I just answered my own question.

Joshua would never, EVER dream of checking his own accounts. He prefers to let his women do that. The def ex, a lying, double-talking little viper, continued using his account for over a year after they broke up and it wasn't until Josh somehow snagged his new squeeze and got HER to monitor his money that it was noticed.

I knew P reminded me of someone, and it's this actor whose face is so recognizable but whose name, Wallace Shawn, I never knew until now.

[Bazinga]

Not much discussion about today's episode.  Direct link to page 118 for the episode originally aired on October 5, 2018:

Friend Loan Fireworks

[Bazinga]

Today's episode is from October 12, 2018.  The direct link to the discussion on page 119 is below. 

Be forewarned, commenters did not think much of the episode, as the word 'boring' was repeated numerous times, and not much was recapped or discussed. 

Which brings me back to my lament, why are these the episodes chosen to be rerun?  There are better episodes than ones initially seen as "boring" by people who watch the show regularly.  Do those in charge of choosing episodes not know the difference?  Do they realize or even care?

While writing this post, I questioned, "Why am I watching something I don't enjoy?"  Maybe I should stop, as I mostly don't enjoy the episodes due to them being uninteresting, repetative, litigants disgusting, and Judge Milan being highly inconsistent and often showing favoritism. 

Direct link to the discussion: Music Mayhem

Edited December 15, 2022 by Bazinga

[Bazinga]

Today's repeat is from October 22, 2018 and is discussed on page 119.  CrazyInAlabama's first sentence describing the episode is, "Today's new ones weren't that exciting."  I sense a trend.

Link: Private Eye Problems

Edited December 17, 2022 by Bazinga
Fixed Link

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Bazinga said:

"Today's new ones weren't that exciting."  I sense a trend.

Since I didn't remember the "Rental Riot" I was re-amused to learn that people in NY should expect yellow water and should not even THINK about having a dishwasher. Yes, there was one shown in photos of the apartment, but it's merely an art installation and non-functional.

[CrazyInAlabama]

In Private Eye Problem, the PI wins, and the losing plaintiff was glaring at the judge.    I'm glad plaintiff couldn't get to the judge, because of hunky Douglas, who could clothesline her easily.   However, Doug in the hall is talking to her, and that worries me since the woman is so angry.   

[AngelaHunter]

46 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

In Private Eye Problem, the PI wins, and the losing plaintiff was glaring at the judge.

I always find it amazing how people can be so dead wrong and no explanation in the world can convince them otherwise. In this case her obstinancy coupled with her inablility to listen to anyone guaranteed she will never "get it".

"He stopped short in front of me so I had no choice but to crash into him (or her)".  Wrong!

"The evidence I hired the P.I. to find didn't exist so not only do I want back what I paid him but he owes me 4500$ for my pain and suffering and the loss of my car and paying a lawyer." Wrong!

I don't understand how knowing the driver was a woman and not a man could excuse her from her rear-ending of the person.

I just couldn't with the second repeat of the vicious viper whose Momma says, "She can't hold her tongue for nothing." That she likes to breed is very sad when I think of innocent babies being subjected to this foul-tempered, foul-mouthed bitch. who has zero self-control.