The People's Court - General Discussion

[Primal Slayer]

I jsut saw the news and I am SO SAD. Peoples Court is my watch before bed....what will I do now? 

[Paperclips]

Maybe they can shop it to a streaming service.  This has to be so cheap to produce I can't believe they cancelled it.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Maybe Judge Judy will add it to her shows she owns and produces, even if it's under a different name?   

I wonder if this is a ploy to get a lot of the viewing public to demand the show continue?   And Mathis also? 

Edited February 19, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[Percysowner]

Message from Marilyn Milian

[bref]

I'm surprised at how genuinely upset I am about this.

MM's statement was classy, as expected. 

[AngelaHunter]

Since the show is not dead in the water yet, I must mention yesterday's 'contestants'.

We had Tranda, with the worst wig ever (I know I keep saying that, but trust me - this is IT and resembled the well-used  brush my chimney sweep has) suing her brother Roddy, a.k.a. Sonny, and her sister Linda for 1,350$ over a bed Tranda bought for her 85 or 86-year-old momma. Tranda is also wearing strange giant glasses that make it look as though she has huge purple rings around her eyes and she can't speak without yelling.

Tranda claims bro and sis stole the bed but it turns out it was infested with bedbugs. Well, to be accurate only the box spring had the buggies, but Tranda says not the mattress since it had a mattress cover (right) so bro&sis threw the box spring out but kept Tranda's mattress and frame.

Linda feels the need to tell JM and us about her colonoscopy. Some things are best kept to yourself, Linda. Then she went to Costco to buy a new box spring for Mom, which made the bed too high for Momma to get up on so she fell and  that's how Tranda knew they stole the other one. She has pictures and insists Mom doesn't need a "bunkie board". Yeah, I don't know either. Tranda's first action was to file a court case instead of calling the sibs and asking about it. I was skeptical about all this since who the hell steals a box spring that costs what - 85 - 150$, if that? Roddy says he owns his own home and why the hell would he steal such a thing? Good point.

JM wants to find out what the hell is going on here? Roddy/Sonny tries to tell JM that Tranda is paranoid but can't find the word so JM supplies it. Seems Defs bro and sis visit their very elderly mother maybe once a month, if that, so Tranda is pissed at them.

Defs are countersuing for the same amount for defamation since Tranda told everyone they stole the bed. Defs admit no one believed that nonsense, so no one gets anything. The bed was a gift which belonged to Momma and if Tranda wants to sue anyone she'd have to sue Mom.  JM's family counselling is lost in the non-stop yelling of Tranda. Finally JM informs them she doesn't give a shit about any of them, except for this elderly momma who "wiped all your buttocks" and seems to be mostly on her own.

 

6 hours ago, Primal Slayer said:

I jsut saw the news and I am SO SAD. Peoples Court is my watch before bed....what will I do now? 

I know! JM has accompanied my dinner for so many years. I may go on a hunger strike. 😭

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Since the show is not dead in the water yet, I must mention yesterday's 'contestants'.

😜

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

We had Tranda, with the worst wig ever (I know I keep saying that, but trust me - this is IT and resembled the well-used  brush my chimney sweep has) suing her brother Roddy, a.k.a. Sonny, and her sister Linda for 1,350$ over a bed Tranda bought for her 85 or 86-year-old momma. Tranda is also wearing strange giant glasses that make it look as though she has huge purple rings around her eyes and she can't speak without yelling.

Maybe compensation for bad vision?  We had a receptionist at work who screamed every time she answered the phone. We actually heard her tell the Board of Directors for a Boston Hospital that our boss wasn’t available because “she was in the bathroom but should be coming out soon because she was in there for a long time”.  Obviously our practice doesn’t pay much. 

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Tranda claims bro and sis stole the bed but it turns out it was infested with bedbugs. Well, to be accurate only the box spring had the buggies, but Tranda says not the mattress since it had a mattress cover (right) so bro&sis threw the box spring out but kept Tranda's mattress and frame.

Yes. Because everyone knows bed bugs do not travel outside of a half inch radius. 

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Linda feels the need to tell JM and us about her colonoscopy. Some things are best kept to yourself, Linda.

True. But I remember Kramer from Seinfeld saying that if you’re at a cocktail party stay by the proctologist for the best stories. 

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Then she went to Costco to buy a new box spring for Mom, which made the bed too high for Momma to get up on so she fell and  that's how Tranda knew they stole the other one. She has pictures and insists Mom doesn't need a "bunkie board".

I don’t know what that is 

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Yeah, I don't know either.

Okay. Just thought I’d ask 

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Tranda's first action was to file a court case instead of calling the sibs and asking about it.

Bet she knew about the cancellation and wanted to get her share of the gravy train before it docked at the station. 

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Roddy says he owns his own home and why the hell would he steal such a thing? Good point.

Sonny seems very bright. 

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

JM wants to find out what the hell is going on here? Roddy/Sonny tries to tell JM that Tranda is paranoid but can't find the word so JM supplies it. Seems Defs bro and sis visit their very elderly mother maybe once a month, if that, so Tranda is pissed at them.

Poor Tranda. We’d call her a “multiple issue” client. 

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Defs are countersuing for the same amount for defamation since Tranda told everyone they stole the bed. Defs admit no one believed that nonsense, so no one gets anything.

Ack. Stupid move. Shoulda told them you were considered a pariah in the family and no one textes anymore 

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

  JM's family counseling is lost in the non-stop yelling of Tranda.

Maybe JMs next career is family counselor. Hey Marilyn. Call me. I know people. 

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Finally JM informs them she doesn't give a shit about any of them, except for this elderly momma who "wiped all your buttocks" and seems to be mostly on her own.

I giggled at this. Looking at these three adults and thinking about them getting their buttocks wiped as babies.

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I know! JM has accompanied my dinner for so many years. I may go on a hunger strike. 😭

This was my lunchtime ritual.  I’ll never eat club crackers again without thinking of TPC. 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

Maybe JMs next career is family counselor. Hey Marilyn. Call me. I know people. 

Try saying, "Holla me up" (I recall Byrd trying to translate that for JJ). She just might do it:

Quote

Milian earned her undergraduate degree in psychology from the University of Miami

 

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

This was my lunchtime ritual.  I’ll never eat club crackers again without thinking of TPC

I doubt I'll pour another glass of wine without thinking of it. #stillsad

[patty1h]

I had very little empathy for the woman suing the funeral home for accidentally burning the clothing her father had on during cremation.  Cynic that I am, I felt that she decided "ca-ching"  when this happened, making this error into a big payday.  She determined that a shirt, jeans and underwear was worth $10K as punishment to the defendant.  Funny how this amount is about the same balance of their funeral bill, unless I heard wrong.  She says she has nothing to remember her dad by...  I think she has a lifetime of memories, pictures, etc. to have in her heart.  I rolled my eyes at her grief voice, even as she told the judge "it's not about the money".   Dang, that sounds harsh but I didn't sense sincerity from her.

When JM asked can't the kids share the mans remaining clothing amongst themselves, but of course, the plaintiff said that is not feasible.  I think that the funeral home could give something back to the loved one to maintain goodwill, but plaintiff tried for a jackpot.  I guess she's lucky to be living in CA where they allow compassion compensation or whatever they called it, so JM gave her $1K.

Edited February 20, 2023 by patty1h

[AngelaHunter]

Today was kind of fun, even though the first case was As Is. P wanted a 20-year-old Kawasaki bike the Def had. Bike had starting problems when P went to check it out, but it got started and P went for a 15-minute test drive and Def told him the problem was just because of the cold weather. The starting problems prompt P to get $3,500 in cash ( from his lady's purse or something?) and give it to Def. No mechanic check on this old bike during the second episode of start probs? Why, no. P says he likes to believe everything anyone tells him. "That's why you're a litigant," JM comments.

P then stashes the bike in his garage for nearly 7 months and takes it out the following spring. He rides it for 70 miles and then it stops dead. He finally takes it to a bike shop where he's told the odometer has been rolled back and the engine put together with Crazy Glue and duct tape. It will cost 4K to fix it up.

P starts a campaign of harassment against the Def, sending threatening emails, leaving threatening phone messages which we heard, and calling Def's whole family his including Mom and Dad. P says Def's ex told him all kinds of unsavory things about D, who is " a not nice person." I wanted to hear about that, but sadly we do not.

Def is counter suing for 5K, since he thinks that P sending insulting emails to HIM (Def) is somehow defamation. I don't know what the deal is with P. He looks and sounds like a meek dweeb so I wasn't getting him threatening the scary-looking biker Def. Well, maybe not so scary as Def whines to both JM and Doug that he was in a "toxic relationship" and had to sell the bike.  Both of them leave empty-handed. Quite possibly Def knew all the things wrong with the bike, but P can't prove that and if he wants to continue believing and trusting people while buying old stuff from them he better get used to being in court. 

Then we had Charlene, who is suing the funeral home for $10,000. They cremated her dad with his clothes on and she had specified she wanted him stirpped and his clothes returned to her before the cremation. It seems Dad had few possessions besides a few articles of clothing. The rest of the family ( they don't get along)is playing tug of war with his other things like jackals at a carcass.

The Def from the funeral home admits that yes, they made a mistake. He was very sorry and he offered $500 in compensation for the clothes.

P thinks the entire funeral and all associated costs should be free because of this mistake. She starts weeping and claims this is sentimental value and "it's not about the money" but then goes on about how she still owes something like 7K on the bill.

She wanted not only the shirt and jeans Dad was wearing, but his underwear and socks too, so she could put them in her closet and smell them.

My father died when I was 17 and he had very little, well, virtually nothing. I kept some German coins he brought home from the war and some pictures. Neither I nor my mother thought about asking for underwear. Oh, well. We're all different.

These litigants live in CA and JM tells us that there people can clean up for sentimental value, depending on how upset they are. JM opines that is very odd and difficult to judge, since if someone seems less upset than another person, they get less?

Anyway, she gives P 1,000$ which I thought was too much but what do I know?

patt1h, we posted at the same time so sorry for what seems like a repetition! Obviously I agree with you!

[Guest]

I half-heard todays first case.  Something about a vehicle sale, used of course (is the any other kind on the show?), purportedly a lemon, threats, wants reimbursement for repairs. Snooze.  No BIG snooze, I worked on returning a few emails. 

I’m certainly not as exact as the re-cappers on this board but generally in case 2 , a broken hearted daughter (also known as a contestant) sued a funeral home director (sitting in an office next to a funeral home calendar) for cremating her father wearing the clothes willed to her.  They consisted of a shirt, pants, belt, socks and underwear.  She was devastated because they had his smell and she wanted to keep them.  Underwear 😳

Apparently she gave the funeral director instructions that she wanted the clothes but a snafu occurred and they were cremated along with Dad.  These clothes meant something to the plaintiff. The funeral director apologized and offered her $500.  Nope.  No deal.  The clothes meant something to her. How much you s’pose?  Try Ten Grand. Recall I mentioned underwear worn by the deceased for viewing purposes. Ten Grand 

Well, of course the law is a mighty cold bitch so the chances of her getting Ten Grand is about as remote as me joining a circus.  Ain’t gonna happen. So JM in her therapist mode says something to the effect that her siblings surely would be glad to give her some of their dads clothing. Nope. Evidently they’re fighting over his clothes too!

I’m thinking this guy has to be an Elvis impersonator for all the hubbub over his clothes and underwear but no, grieving daughter said he had very little. 

So to boil this all down the grieving daughter gets $1000 not Ten grand. She kept insisting it wasn’t about the money but you could see she was seething with the judgment.  Don’t you understand…dads dead. I wanted his clothes and underwear to smell.  Now all I have is $1000 but it’s not about the money. The law is unfair. 

That’s all I got on this one and a side note.  As a kid I remember my nana always having a calendar from the local funeral home hanging in her kitchen. I assume the thinking was people would be so devastated a death their only thought was to “make sure I get the underwear” and wouldn’t take the time to shop for a funeral home.  Suddenly it would enter their minds to use the funeral home that gave us a free calendar 

Subliminal messaging at its finest (and perhaps tackiest).

[DoctorK]

57 minutes ago, patty1h said:

Funny how this amount is about the same balance of their funeral bill

I was thinking the same, and was ready to dump on the plaintiff but you have already covered most of my points, even including the :

15 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

“make sure I get the underwear”

It is possible that the plaintiff really is as emotionally unstable and foolish as she acted for the case, but I doubt it. At first I assumed that the $10K clothes were her father's nicest suit (which she could keep and maybe have it altered for a grandson in memory of her father?) but in the picture she provided it looked like a KMart shirt with a pair of jeans (the fabulous belt was not visible in the photo). Even then I might have bought her story, until the underwear entered the discussion. I wonder if she filed this case after the undertaker asked to have his bill paid.

Edited February 20, 2023 by DoctorK

[cinsays]

16 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

I half-heard todays first case.  Something about a vehicle sale, used of course (is the any other kind on the show?), purportedly a lemon, threats, wants reimbursement for repairs. Snooze.  No BIG snooze, I worked on returning a few emails. 

I’m certainly not as exact as the re-cappers on this board but generally in case 2 , a broken hearted daughter (also known as a contestant) sued a funeral home director (sitting in an office next to a funeral home calendar) for cremating her father wearing the clothes willed to her.  They consisted of a shirt, pants, belt, socks and underwear.  She was devastated because they had his smell and she wanted to keep them.  Underwear 😳

Apparently she gave the funeral director instructions that she wanted the clothes but a snafu occurred and they were cremated along with Dad.  These clothes meant something to the plaintiff. The funeral director apologized and offered her $500.  Nope.  No deal.  The clothes meant something to her. How much you s’pose?  Try Ten Grand. Recall I mentioned underwear worn by the deceased for viewing purposes. Ten Grand 

Well, of course the law is a mighty cold bitch so the chances of her getting Ten Grand is about as remote as me joining a circus.  Ain’t gonna happen. So JM in her therapist mode says something to the effect that her siblings surely would be glad to give her some of their dads clothing. Nope. Evidently they’re fighting over his clothes too!

I’m thinking this guy has to be an Elvis impersonator for all the hubbub over his clothes and underwear but no, grieving daughter said he had very little. 

So to boil this all down the grieving daughter gets $1000 not Ten grand. She kept insisting it wasn’t about the money but you could see she was seething with the judgment.  Don’t you understand…dads dead. I wanted his clothes and underwear to smell.  Now all I have is $1000 but it’s not about the money. The law is unfair. 

That’s all I got on this one and a side note.  As a kid I remember my nana always having a calendar from the local funeral home hanging in her kitchen. I assume the thinking was people would be so devastated a death their only thought was to “make sure I get the underwear” and wouldn’t take the time to shop for a funeral home.  Suddenly it would enter their minds to use the funeral home that gave us a free calendar 

Subliminal messaging at its finest (and perhaps tackiest).

I don't think the daughter should have made a killing about her father's clothes.

Having said that, I never really thought about it, but it does seem like the default would be to remove the clothing before cremating a person and only keep the clothes on if the family requested that.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, cinsays said:

I don't think the daughter should have made a killing about her father's clothes.

Having said that, I never really thought about it, but it does seem like the default would be to remove the clothing before cremating a person and only keep the clothes on if the family requested that.

Yes.  I thought they covered the deceased in a sheet-like wrap.  But I really have no expertise on the subject.  I got that idea from a Columbo episode.

[AngelaHunter]

45 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

I’m thinking this guy has to be an Elvis impersonator for all the hubbub over his clothes and underwear but no, grieving daughter said he had very little.

Seriously. If it had been an Elvis getup costing thousands or something vintage like a Zoot suit maybe I would understand since she could have taken it to Pawn Stars and peddled it for some cash (that's another place where something achieves great "sentimental value" only when not enough money is offered) but personally the thought of the undertaker stripping the corpse of sad Walmart clothes does not appeal to me.

She wanted to "smell the cologne" he wore. On his Jockey shorts? His socks?

Of course she can do whatever she likes, but the 10K price tag is kind of greedy, IMO.

 

[Pepper the Cat]

I can’t get past the idea that not only did the guy had a favourite pair of underwear but his daughter knew what pair they were.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Of course she can do whatever she likes, but the 10K price tag is kind of greedy, IMO.

Perfect summation. 

I also suspect there’s a whole lot of turmoil in that family and her pining over Dad’s BVD’s is a way to deflect from grieving and confronting her siblings. 

We just made new wills last month. I will now have to add an addendum that says under no circumstances will my family fight over the underwear I am sporting while in the casket.  

Never thought I’d ever have to write that sentence but I do want all bases covered. 

And folks, this is why TPC must continue.  Education. 

And clarification in a previous post.  When I said the law is a cold bitch that was meant figuratively.  I in no way was referring to JM. I was thinking of that because JM was citing California law. 

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

We just made new wills last month. I will now have to add an addendum that says under no circumstances will my family fight over the underwear I am sporting while in the casket.  

I'm laughing myself frickin' sick here.

I'm picturing the funeral, after your casket gets wheeled away and the funeral director emerges to say to the bereaved, "Hey, I watched that episode of TPC. Anyone want these?" as he waves around a pair of your unmentionables.

Make sure you add to your will that you will go to your Eternal Rest in bloomers with no holes or broken elastics, at least. You never know who will see them.

3 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

I also suspect there’s a whole lot of turmoil in that family and her pining over Dad’s BVD’s is a way to deflect from grieving and confronting her siblings. 

All the pining and grieving (and trying to score a free funeral) aside, someone who wants underpants from a dead body is nutso.

I was a No.1 fan of "Six Feet Under" and watching that made me decide on no viewings and no funeral - straight from my death bed to the oven. If anyone craves my underpants, there's a drawer full of them. Socks too!

Oh, I forgot: Today Judge John told MM, in a nice way, that's she's devious and manipulative. We might get to see them in a physical altercation before the end of this.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Oh, I forgot: Today Judge John told MM, in a nice way, that's she's devious and manipulative. We might get to see them in a physical altercation before the end of this.

Here’s hoping.

But buddy you married her. And you also foisted three copies of her to boot on the rest of the world. 

I could be way off base here but something tells me JM had plans for her oldest angel to “take over the family business” when she retired. 

And now with the cancellation of TPC we can see how that has thrown a monkey wrench into those plans. 

[Paperclips]

Judge Mathis got picked up for another show to start in the fall, so hopefully Peoole's Court gets picked up next.

[Guest]

And with all the hubbub over the cancellation of our show we’ve ignored our guys Doug and Douglas. 

Wouldn’t it be great if those two took it on the road, sat on a stage and told tales about the contestants on TPC?  All that backstage stuff we didn’t know?  What went on in the hallway after taping?   I’d be in that audience, no question about that!

And Harvey.  Here’s a suggestion for future plans…go to hell.  

I think that covers about everyone. 

[Taeolas]

Both TPC and Judge Mathis have ties to Warner Brothers, in that WB distributes the shows. Considering the turmoil that's surrounded the WB/Discovery merger, I wonder if they got caught in the crossfire as a cost-cutting measure. (which is a bit strange since the new WBD president is very reality-TV focused so arbitration shows should be in his bailiwick). 

In any case, it's sad to see TPC go off the air. Considering how many unexpected repeats we've had this season, I have to wonder if there have been some production issues going on behind the scenes we haven't heard of yet. 

As noted above (and in the Judge Mathis thread), Judge Mathis is landing quickly on his feet, with his show being picked up and rebranded almost as fast as the cancellation notice went out. I suspect his new show will take his old show's slot this fall and things will basically continue as they've been. 

As for The People's Court, I hope JMM and Douglas and Doug will get a similar opportunity if they want it. Rebranding it might be tricky since this show's name has more history than just the Marilyn years, but it would be nice to get an announcement that "The Court of the People with Judge Marilyn Milian" will be debuting in the fall soon. 

[patty1h]

If only they'd gotten rid of the unnecessary and boring "Question to the Judges" segment, that would have been a serious cost cutting move to ditch the husband.  No clue what he's being paid, but it would surely have eased the budget.   If only...

If TPC gets picked up by another company, my fingers will be crossed that it is a one judge show and Mr. JM stays home.

Edited February 21, 2023 by patty1h

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, patty1h said:

If TPC gets picked up by another company, my fingers will be crossed that it is a one judge show and Mr. JM stays home.

I dunno. I've kind of enjoyed him since he started taking passive-aggressive swipes at JM.  I recall when he shoved a huge pic of her in her face and gleefully told her she looks just like a batshit crazy litigant we saw that day. JM was not amused.

Today, another "as is". Def sold her old pop-up camper to P for 1500$. As in yesterday's case, P leaves it to sit all winter before she even examines it or tries to register it but can't register it since Def never bothered to register it either.

Def has a lot of excuses: "I'm a single mother" (sorry but your kids are 30 years old and the ship has sailed on the SSMO defense) "I pay a lot of taxes" (come live here and find out what a 'lot of taxes' really means) "I only got it for my kids to sleep in when they visit and NEVER hooked it up or took on the road". Is that like the people who say they don't need car insurance since they only drive their cars to work/the club/the salon and back?

P tries to get money by saying the sink leaks, etc. Sorry, but you're the one who bought it without checking anything out for all those months.

JM rules that Def needs to go to the DMV with P and get the title transferred. She agrees to do this and pay the taxes owed. Somehow I doubt this is going to happen since paying taxes is not on her agenda.

But never mind that crap. Next, we got the royal wedding to end all weddings. Seriously, queens and kings have been crowned and married with way less pomp and circumstance.

Merline, P, is suing WERLAINE, def bride for the cost of a bridesmaid dress Merline was to wear to this massive extravaganza after Werlaine informed her by text that she'd been kicked off the wedding party. JM Is shocked that Merline doesn't even ask why. I totally get it. I don't look gift horses in the mouth either. I'm sure Merline's reaction was "Thank god!"

There are multiple, huge events leading to this Wedding of the Century, including PowerPoint presentations for the 50-person wedding party, endless group chats, and rehearsals of complex dance numbers to be performed in the aisle - arm kissing, twirling, whirling, dipping, etc. She gives a little demo with her hands to JM.

This is to be an "Olde English" theme complete with princesses, princes, kings, queens, flower maidens, handmaidens, and an "entire list of 'hierarchical themes'. 👀

I know you think I'm exaggerating but this was so fantastic I actually wrote it down.

Werlaine is running this production like a drill instructor or some kind of martinet. She got alarmed when P didn't answer her zillion texts and chat messages etc, after she had informed her (Merline) that she was "exclusively requested to be a BADIO maid (?) and agreeing to such a position requires you to give emotional and mental support" to Werlaine.

There's more, about "mandatory" stuff for the massive bridal party. Werlaine tells JM that since she and her hubby already have a completely furnished home, she decided on a "Green Shower" which JM thought might mean sustainable or organic components, but turned it means "Give us CASH only". 😆

I don't know if Merline got her 200$ back from Werlaine for the dress. I couldn't take any more hilarity and found my "Off" button.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The wedding case was hysterical to me!     I think since she paid for the dress, if it was still sealed in the original packing material, defendant could return it.   JM said plaintiff had to send or get the dress to defendant, and if she could return it for all of her money that would be the only money exchanged.   Plaintiff also had to send a photo of the intact packaging to the court as proof. 

In case anyone was upset that the 50 person wedding party would be short, they managed to find a substitute person to take defendant's place.    Plaintiff lost, and she was so angry.   

Edited February 22, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

8 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

In case anyone was upset that the 50 person wedding party would be short, they managed to find a substitute person to take defendant's place. 

Oh, good. I was worried Werlaine might be missing the emotional and mental Badio Maid Support Person.

BTW, I tried looking up 'Badio Maid" (maybe my CC got it wrong?) since I'm not up on my hierarchical Olde English weddings, but results are scarce.

 

 

[Guest]

15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

 

 

I don’t understand. 

She was supposed to have this at her wedding?  For what purpose?  

I suppose I got cheated. I had a maid of honor and four bridesmaids and believe me when I say there was no groveling to  the bride with those five. 

Seriously, that picture looks like an ad touting available entertainment for a bachelor party. 

[Maverick]

 The Judge Mathis deal had to have been set before the cancellation was announced.   You don't throw together deals like that in a couple of days.   I hope that means they are working on something else for JMM and we'll hear about it soon.   But as mentioned above, I worry given the late start to this season without explanation and all the years old reruns we've been having if there isn't some backstage reason for the cancellation.   I wonder if it's some kind of backstage drama or if they want to be retired empty nesters.

 If they do a new show, I would like to see it be close to TPC.   I like that they try to run it like a real courtroom and while JMM can be...intense sometimes I think she's just being herself and not putting on a character show for the cameras.  Unfortunately, if there is a new show I think they'll do something that uses both her and John somehow.   The idea of married judges is just too appealing for a reality TV producer to pass up.   I've actually been surprised they haven't tried to incorporate Judge John in a more meaningful way.  I could also see them wanting to do that but thinking that tinkering with the TPC formula too much would turn viewers off and decided to cancel it and do the Marilyn and John show. 

[DoctorK]

Pot hole guy. That guy was completely full of crap. First, if he was driving at five miles an hour as he claimed, there is no way that he wouldn't see the big pothole (aside from his claim that he goes there all of the time so he has been seeing that hole many times before), but even then, at 5 mph his tire should not have been damaged unless it is an extremely low profile high performance tire on a 20" or bigger rim which seems unlikely for the plaintiff. He also claimed that he saw a large bulge in the tire sidewall (for which we have to take his word for this) which sounds more like a tire defect which would be under warranty if he was telling the truth about how new it was, the way that he said that it was only "three months old, or maybe four months old" (which again we have to take his word for it). Add in his taking weeks to contact the car wash owner, I just don't believe anything he said.  No evidence of how new the tire was, no proof of the tire bulge right after the car wash (he was driving around for two days (at least) before he got it fixed), his inability to get a phone number to call the car wash, it all adds up to "flapping gums", a phrase JM uses frequently, not sure why she didn't use it here. Maybe I am underestimating the plaintiff. Maybe he was clever enough to see a tire bulge and remembered the monstrous hole (honestly, it wasn't that big a deal for 5 mph hit) he had seen in all of the many, many times he went to the car wash and got a bright idea. Nah, he was just an idiot.

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by DoctorK

[Paperclips]

Funniest Part of this episode - Doug said to the pothole guy - "You could have went to a phone booth" - ha haaaaa!  Doug showing his age!

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, Paperclips said:

Doug showing his age!

And his dubious skill with the English language. Really, "could have went"?

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Pot hole guy. That guy was completely full of crap.

I couldn't stand that tiny little petty money-grubbing, nickel-grabbing scammer who should be ashamed to show up here. His wife had COVID, so no way could he make a phone call. Oh, he was busy too, so couldn't call the car wash for over two weeks, so who knows where and when his tire got damaged. If that were my little no-neck husband there trying to get a tiny little score and making a fool of himself I would be so embarrassed.

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

he said that it was only "three months old, or maybe four months old" (which again we have to take his word for it).

He also added later, "Maybe 5 or 6 months, no older". Maybe 10, or 30 months? Who knows?

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Nah, he was just an idiot.

Yep. It's someone else's fault that there was this huge, visible crater and he just drove over it. I'm familiar with huge potholes around here. I drove over one a few days ago in a parking lot. In my defense, it was covered in snow and hidden but was wide and deep enough to plant a crop of potatoes in and my car made an unpleasant THUD when it hit. No bulgy tires.

I find it incredible that even people who are just renting their homes are responsible for repairing public sidewalks. Wow. Shouldn't taxes cover that?

3 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

And his dubious skill with the English language. Really, "could have went"?

Doug said, "Could have went?" I know listening to litigants for years has made me doubt my own grammar and spelling skills, but really?

Addendum: I just looked again, and he actually said, "You didn't go to a phone booth."

Whew! You're still tops, Doug!

[DoctorK]

12 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Doug said, "Could have went?"

Sorry, I was using another person's quote, I should always go to primary sources. The level of English abuse we see can be numbing and snark worthy but in this case I erred.

[AngelaHunter]

5 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

Sorry, I was using another person's quote, I should always go to primary sources. The level of English abuse we see can be numbing and snark worthy but in this case I erred.

Yes, I know. It's understandable when it seems we're going to have a new generation of lawyers and doctors who will say things like, "Preponderance of a doubt" and "You don't got no symptoms?"

[Paperclips]

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Sorry, I was using another person's quote, I should always go to primary sources. The level of English abuse we see can be numbing and snark worthy but in this case I erred.

Apologies - I was more interested in "phone booth".  I will stay off of this thread for awhile.  I thought it was just in good fun.

[Carolina Girl]

On 2/15/2023 at 6:28 PM, AngelaHunter said:

BTW, is that cookbook with the red gingham cover?

 

On 2/15/2023 at 10:22 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Well, hell - I just looked and mine is the H&G version too! The only difference is mine is the size of a paperback book.

I've had both.  The Quiche Lorraine recipe in the paperback is superior to the one in the binder.  

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, Paperclips said:

Apologies -

Absolutely no apologies needed, I have been a bit loose  on a few quotes, but we all have fun here and enjoy each others posts, snark and social interactions.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, Paperclips said:

Apologies - I was more interested in "phone booth".  I will stay off of this thread for awhile.  I thought it was just in good fun.

No need. Some of my posts are a garbled mess since I don't always adhere to the brilliant advice that " Email (and posting) and merlot don't mix" Okay. I never adhere to it. 🤪

[DoctorK]

Today's first case irked me. To me it was obvious that the one big problem in this situation was the defendant. He is a fast talking, late paying liar and a big jerk. He first tried to say that he didn't believe that his kid did the damage, then the plaintiff showed a text admitting that the daughter damaged the car. He insisted that the damage could be buffed out cheaply but didn't have any support for that (and the scratch looked to me to be beyond the "buff it out" level of damage. The two women were working at smoothing things out and may have succeeded if the loud mouth defendant hadn't prevented it (in spite of protestations to the contrary). It didn't help my opinion of him the way he testified, sour angry look, turning his head to one side or the other and talking and looking sideways at the judge, that is some pretty clear body language for anger and aggression. He also tried to convince everybody that he is the real victim here and he is so sad at how things developed even though he was the biggest cause.

I think I will skip the second case, I am tired of pit bulls running wild and owners who deny any responsibility, we've seen that too many times.

[CrazyInAlabama]

So, JM says 'can't find account" is the defendant's bank's fault?  No it isn't, they do the scans electronically, two months of checks bounced, so I bet plaintiff closed the account.    Bounced checks aren't exactly the same thing, but they do say insufficient funds.   Can't find account is worse, because it means the account was closed, or the plaintiff changed account numbers.    

Edited February 25, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[Guest]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

So, JM says 'can't find account" is the plaintiff's bank's fault?  No it isn't, they do the scans electronically, two months of checks bounced, so I bet defendant closed the account.    Bounced checks aren't exactly the same thing, but they do say insufficient funds.   Can't find account is worse, because it means the account was closed.   

If ever JM's mind was closed before a case started...it was today.  

She was like a badger with the "bounced check" reference.  We all knew what the defendant meant by bounced check - he didn't get his money on the date he was supposed to but she kept hounding him on that fact.

And CrazyInAlabama I did not know it meant a closed account but it all makes sense.  The plaintiff felt duped (and rightfully so, that place was a cesspool) and probably wanted to screw the defendant over for deceptive rental practices.

To say JM was prickly today is an understatement.  She was downright crabby.

And the whole pandemic question.  Her answer of a mini gathering (15 feet away) in their cul-de-sac is precisely the reason I was adamant when looking for a home that it would not be in a cul-de-sac.  I watched Knots Landing.  I know of all the hanky-panky that went on.  Thank you no.  😝

[Bazinga]

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

So, JM says 'can't find account" is the plaintiff's bank's fault?  No it isn't, they do the scans electronically, two months of checks bounced, so I bet defendant closed the account.    Bounced checks aren't exactly the same thing, but they do say insufficient funds.   Can't find account is worse, because it means the account was closed. 

CrazyinAlabama, I think you inverted plaintiff and defendant in your comment.  JM was blaming the defendant's bank, not the plaintiff's bank. 

By coincidence, the same thing happened to me last month.  I saw the problem online first, when my account showed a RETURNED DEPOSIT ITEM for a $100 check and a RETURNED DEP FEE of $10.  I assumed, like the defendant, that there was insufficient funds in the account or, in lay terms, that the check "bounced."  A few days later, I received in the mail from my bank the returned check.  It says the return reason, just like the check in this case, is "unable to locate acct."  I didn't know what that meant, as I have never seen this before, so I called my bank and the person I spoke to thought maybe the account number was wrong or the account was closed.  I was told my client should check with her bank.  My client said her bank said (I never asked for or received a letter from the client's bank explaining what happened) that the system is not identifying the account with only the last 4 digits and she has to order new checks and the new checks will have all the numbers.  Not sure what that means, but I am not pressing it with my client (told her to pay this with her next payment) and just hope at some point to have the client send a new check and pay my bank fee.  I allow people to pay me basically at their discretion, so I don't charge late fees.  I do assume it was a problem with my client's bank account though.   

The defendant believing the check "bounced", as that is what he is used to, is not so outrageous, the way JM was carrying on.  Yes, the check didn't "bounce" in that sense, so the repeated use of the term is wrong, but something happened.  For him, he didn't get the money on time and it was the tenant or tenant's bank's fault, not his fault or his bank's fault.  The late fee is high, but that is what the tenant agreed to.  I don't think the defendant was wrong on that issue.  If it was the plaintiff's bank's fault, plaintiff should get his bank to compensate him for the late fees he was charged. 

Edited February 25, 2023 by Bazinga

[Pepper the Cat]

Will there be new episodes or are we done?

[Bazinga]

Rerun from September 14, 2018.

Link to discussion:  Accident Anger

Note, much more activity in this forum back then.

My comment regarding the litigants in case one still stands:

On 9/20/2018 at 3:00 AM, Bazinga said:

I hated the way JM indulged and tolerated both the girl who allowed the rapper, whose real name she didn't even know, to drive her car and the rapper.  She treated them like they were both so cute and were Romeo and Juliet rather then both being stupid and liars.  His overall behavior was both ridiculous and disrespectful.  Here she played along with him while he acted out the driving; treating his nonsense as oh, so cute.  The defendant repeatedly said to JM, "Look..." without her even noting it because she liked him and wasn't looking to pounce on him.  Talking to a judge that way is disrespectful, IMO.  Others get admonished for much less, such as that plaintiff trainer who barely interrupted but, oddly, got called a baby who would not allow anything negative to be said about him. 

I hate the inconsistency and that some really, really undeserving people get catered to because JM for some bizarre reason thinks they are "cool" or something. 

 

[rcc]

52 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

Rerun from September 14, 2018.

Link to discussion:  Accident Anger

Note, much more activity in this forum back then.

My comment regarding the litigants in case one still stands:

 

Yes, watching this case made me almost glad this show is no more. JM getting off the bench with the idiot was too much. These litigants driving with no seat belts and no insurance. The "artist" had no license added to it all. No accountability from either one. 

[AngelaHunter]

48 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

She treated them like they were both so cute and were Romeo and Juliet rather then both being stupid and liars

I forgot I had ever seen this until we got to mush-mouthed moron Def with his, "She ain't know my real name". I thought maybe he was working undercover but it seems he's a rapper of some renown. Yeah, along with a million others.

Agree that the way JM treated them, these two dingbats with the plaintiff not even knowing the name of the dumbass fool she's humping 'talking to' was infuriating as was awarding P anything. Did they read the police report? Hahahaha. Yeah, right. Double-digit IQ Def could hardly talk let alone read.

P is going to find out one day that flowing wigs and the cutesy act will get her only so far in life.

JM? "Stupid" is NOT cute.

WTF does "finna" mean?

Sorry, I got extra grumpy after seeing the repeat of the smarmy, grinning jerkoff kennel owner who thinks he's charming and declares that the dog was acting in a careless manner, based on his extensive knowledge of the way a prudent dog would behave, and therefore he's not responsible for her injury.

6 minutes ago, rcc said:

Yes, watching this case made me almost glad this show is no more.

I know what you mean. These cases make me irritated and impatient. I only slog through the detritus for the few outstanding cases we get.

[Bazinga]

Continuing the rerun pattern of showing episodes from approximately the same time period (why???) but not in order and not all episodes, today we will turn to an episode from September 20, 2018.  Discussion is on Page 116. 

Here is the direct link: Return Policy Problems.

AngelaHunter's comment about the first case sums it up pretty well, "Is this the dumbest case ever?".  I'll leave it at that.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

16 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Continuing the rerun pattern of showing episodes from approximately the same time period (why???)

I did quite enjoy the repeat of the musical Walden Frey and his freaky bedroom rental, which is not a bedroom and where he feels entitled to barge in and use it as a path to the kitchen.

Again, I don't know what was wrong with the Ps. When I was that age (or even at this age!), wanted to rent a room and came face to face with Greg AND saw that the room wasn't even a bedroom but a pass-through hall or whatever I would never EVER have taken it.

Even after being shown up as a creepy weirdo who wants a tenant but doesn't really want one,(and just wants their money) unless that tenant is invisible or doesn't mind a weirdo traipsing through their bedroom at will, he tells Doug that all the "circumstances" about his insanity weren't heard. Under what circumstances other than fire/flood/murder would it be okay for any landlord to enter a tenant's private space whenever he feels like a cup of coffee? WTF, Greg? Get a smaller house if you can't afford this one.

I also got a chuckle again at his accusation that P brought a bunch of rats with her and kept them in and under the bed. 😆

[CrazyInAlabama]

Where I live (lower Alabama) we have a rerun at 10 a.m., and it's from this season.  The afternoon time slot where they put new episodes when they have them, is showing reruns of the older seasons.

[Bazinga]

We return, once again, to the halcyon days of September 2018, when the leaves were turning, Donald Trump was in the White House, Brett Kavanaugh was fighting for his seat on the Supreme Court, the kids were dancing to "In My Feelings" by Drake, Cardi B. and Nicki Minaj were fighting, Murphy Brown was back on TV, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle were newly married and living in Britain, Burt Reynolds and rapper Mac Miller died and Ariana Grande grieved for one of them.  The People's Court episode for September 13, 2018 (the day before Tuesday's rerun), before Covid distancing protocols, before Judge John, with an audience and Harvey's street gallery, and is discussed on Page 115.  This is the episode where drug dealers sue each other in court and JM calls the dealer's girlfriend to "testify" and a lady expects to keep returning her mattress to get a new one.

Discussion: Friends Feuding in Court.