The People's Court - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

31 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I am watching today's curtain cleaning case.   The defendants playing the 'we're too old to understand contracts' routine is despicable by them, and I'm glad Judge Marilyn called them out on it. 

"Despicable" is the word. The curtain bully stood over her and intimidated her after he told her exactly what he would do and how much it would cost to try to clean and salvage her drapes which were probably in style in 1975. This was a case of elder abuse! She was confused and fearful so she signed the contract and then stiffed the P. Maybe the Plaintiff pulled a gun and told her, "Either your signature or your brains will be on this contract". 😄

Personally, I would not pay 900$ to get my drapes taken down, cleaned, pleated, or whatever and rehung but that's probably because I got mine for 15$ a panel at Giant Tiger.

We all know what happened. Def told someone about this service and that person said, "You got ripped off! My cleaner would do them for 60$!" The P has been in business for 30 years so he must be doing something right. The chiseling defs should just break the bank and get some new, modern window coverings. Giant Tiger has an amazing selection, really!

The first case... I really don't have the words, other than that the old busybody "tattletale" (which P called himself and seemed proud of it) asshole needs a hobby other than being the Flophouse Gestapo and informant. Something about living in a place where 12 strangers share a bathroom left me stunned, depressed, and confused.

[Razzberry]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Flophouse Gestapo

🤣

[Taeolas]

14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Personally, I would not pay 900$ to get my drapes taken down, cleaned, pleated, or whatever and rehung but that's probably because I got mine for 15$ a panel at Giant Tiger.

We all know what happened. Def told someone about this service and that person said, "You got ripped off! My cleaner would do them for 60$!" The P has been in business for 30 years so he must be doing something right. The chiseling defs should just break the bank and get some new, modern window coverings. Giant Tiger has an amazing selection, really!

 

That's where I got my patio door drapes as well! (or at least my mom bought them for me for XMas for the patio doors). For about that price too. :) 

Has anyone else noticed that the editing of the cases seems a bit off? I notice it especially at the very start of the episode, when Douglas is handing the case over to JMM. He seems to pause for a long moment of silence before JMM does her usual "Thank you Douglas" and things continue; something I never noticed before. 

[patty1h]

6 hours ago, Taeolas said:

He seems to pause for a long moment of silence before JMM does her usual "Thank you Douglas" and things continue; something I never noticed before. 

I noticed that the last 2-3 cases but I thought it was that JM was taking a little longer to settle into her chair - maybe it's the mic/equipment, or her robe or just age has slowed down her and Douglas was waiting until she was nice and comfy before giving her his speech.

[aemom]

On 2/20/2023 at 6:26 PM, 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.

I don't post that often because I'm usually so far behind, and the irony of this one is that if I HAD watched it on time, I might have a different opinion about it.

But having just lost my father and dealing with his burial last weekend, I have a different perspective.  Maybe she was just looking for cash to help pay the outstanding bill, but maybe she saw it more along the lines of how I would have seen it.

There were a couple of hiccups with the all the stuff involved with my dad, but nothing really major.  However, if they had screwed something up on the level of maybe not returning something like a watch or a ring that was supposed to have been returned to me and they sent him to the crematorium with them instead, I would be very tempted to sue them for a lot - not because I wanted the money, but because I wanted it to be enough money to hurt enough to make them very, very careful about screwups like that in the future.

That was my take on it anyway.

[AngelaHunter]

48 minutes ago, aemom said:

There were a couple of hiccups with the all the stuff involved with my dad, but nothing really major.  However, if they had screwed something up on the level of maybe not returning something like a watch or a ring that was supposed to have been returned to me and they sent him to the crematorium with them instead, I would be very tempted to sue them for a lot - not because I wanted the money, but because I wanted it to be enough money to hurt enough to make them very, very careful about screwups like that in the future.

First of all, condolences on the loss of your father.

I agree with sentimental things like jewelry, watches, maybe medals, and other irreplaceable items that are so closely connected with the deceased.

It was the daughter's insistence on his generic clothing and underwear and claiming 10k, nearly the amount that the funeral costs that made us skeptical of her motives.

The overly-verbose "I...I..I...I...I' fashion addict today who was claiming he had clothing from every designer imaginable that was stolen from the hostel where he was staying: No receipts, bank/CC statements, or proof of any kind was offered and he only noticed these valuable items a week after he left this transient dormitory with 18 beds in it. He should have sold this massive designer collection and maybe he wouldn't have had to stay in this horrid place so long.

Def. had proof of everything, including the admission papers P signed, acknowledging that they are not responsible for lost or stolen items. He gets zero and continues to blab on even after JM leaves that he's going to a different court.

The best part was in the hall, where he yammers at Doug that there are all kinds of illegal things going on in this House of Horrors, he never signed that paper that had his photo ID and all that crap.

Doug is all, "Oh, come on! You're just mad because you lost!"

Plaintiff snarkily simpers: "I love you, Doug Llewelyn!"

Doug snickers and does not return the sentiment.

Edited April 21, 2023 by AngelaHunter
I forget what I say and repeat myself. What a bore I am

[aemom]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

First of all, condolences on the loss of your father.

I agree with sentimental things like jewelry, watches, maybe medals, and other irreplaceable items that are so closely connected with the deceased.

It was the daughter's insistence on his generic clothing and underwear and claiming 10k, nearly the amount that the funeral costs that made us skeptical of her motives.

 Thank you @AngelaHunter ❤️

I fully admit I am probably more inclined to give her a pass under the circumstances than I normally would.  The funeral home really does need to get their shit together because that's a REALLY bad mistake.

I should catch up at some point - especially since I missed a bunch of episodes due to the ice storm resulting in no power for 4.5 days.

While I'm here, @badhaggis  Thanks for the hugs and for liking my posts from way back when the repeats are airing - I go back and check what I wrote for those eps and get to enjoy the snark all over again. 😀

[seacliffsal]

So, there was an entire episode of just one case-tenant versus landlord.  What was going on?  Now that it's canceled do they totally not care about the viewers anymore?  It was painful as they showed the entire video of the landlord's son walking through the apartment and noting every single thing.  I couldn't believe that this boring case was one for which the producers were all "yes, this is the one that show be an entire hour! Let's show every moldy window, all of the roaches, and the toilet!  This will probably get us another emmy...!"

During the next episode with the out of control pit bull, I kept thinking that if this was Judge Judy she would be reading the letter about pit bulls that she often pulled out.  I couldn't believe that Judge Milian didn't make a point about having a known biter and aggressive pit bull in the house with four children might not be the best idea.  And the plaintiff seemed surprised that rescues didn't want to take a known biter.

The designer clothes missing from a hostel case was a bit sad in that the former stylist had all he owned in a couple of bags but couldn't be bothered to put them in a locker.  I think he was probably trying to scam the hostel, but he may also have just forgotten where he put them.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, aemom said:

I should catch up at some point - especially since I missed a bunch of episodes due to the ice storm resulting in no power for 4.5 days.

Right. Same here. I swear after this I'm getting a generator! No internet and no court shows for 5 days is more than anyone should have to bear.

I must check YT and see if the eps we missed are posted there.

[aemom]

8 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Right. Same here. I swear after this I'm getting a generator! No internet and no court shows for 5 days is more than anyone should have to bear.

I must check YT and see if the eps we missed are posted there.

Checking YT is a good idea! We are also looking into getting a generator - trying to decide what sort we would need to give us what we'd want. HQ doesn't do anywhere near aggressive enough tree trimming, but that's a whole other story. 

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, aemom said:

Checking YT is a good idea! We are also looking into getting a generator - trying to decide what sort we would need to give us what we'd want.

You can look at this calculator and get a very rough, ballpark idea of what it might cost all told with installation, etc.  Yesterday afternoon there was a massive "BOOM" of a blown-up transformer and the power went out again. I freaked. A generator is very pricey but I can't take this stress anymore. I mean, basically, like, no internet? That's inhuman.

https://www.generac.com/for-homeowners/home-backup-power/build-your-generator

14 hours ago, seacliffsal said:

I think he was probably trying to scam the hostel, but he may also have just forgotten where he put them.

The def did say the plaintiff never mentioned missing clothes until he was refused a refund when he left early. It's hard to believe he didn't notice such a large haul of designer clothes was missing when he packed.

I think he was determined to get the refund - and maybe a little bonus - one way or another.

[DoctorK]

Today’s hamster case was uncomfortable to watch. I felt sorry for the plaintiff losing her pet hamster, but I think her attachment was a little over the top – She looks to about my age (i.e., old) and according to petmd.com the average hamster lives 18 to 36 months (noting that some breeds are longer lived, and other sources say 2.5 years average or 1 to 3.5 years) so becoming deeply dependent on such short lived animals is going to lead to frequent emotionally painful experiences. The way her brother smiled throughout the case, her deadpan presentation and bizarre eye makeup (with a really bad wig), felt sort of out of kilter to me. My cynical side wondered if she (at her brother’s encouragement) is going to want to sue for $1500 every couple of years; I hope that is not the case.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Interesting eye makeup on the plaintiff who lost the hamster.   I've heard of many who had a hamster escape all kinds of enclosures.    The enclosure (aquarium) top was only screen, and without secure clips, it would be easy for a hamster to get out of the cage.        I wonder if someone swiped Irby the Hamster?     I know plaintiff owner was upset, but to call the hamster and expect him to come back isn't normal.   

I bet Irby went home with another customer in a five finger discount scenario.  What made this even more bizarre is when defendant gave plaintiff another hamster, and plaintiff returned it in a few days, because the hamster's personality wasn't the same. 

$1500 for a hamster?  Ridiculous.  I looked and Pet Smart sells hamsters for $22 to $25 each, depending on the breed. Pet store owner returned the boarding fee before the case.   Plaintiff given the choice between a replacement from defendant or another hamster, plaintiff has already found another hamster online, so she gets the value of a hamster, $30.  So poor Doug has to suffer with plaintiff talking about building a relationship with a new hamster.  

Next bizarre pet case, plaintiff sends money to buy Yorkie puppy, defendant claims she never received money from plaintiff, but it went to some hacker.   Defendant claims she sent FB marketplace a complaint, but has no proof.   Plaintiff has no puppy, and defendant claims she's innocent.  Puppy was $500, and plaintiff sent $200 via Cash App or Zelle, that were both in defendant's name, but she claims she wasn't involved.   Defendant asked if she's ever been convicted of a crime, and finally says no she hasn't been convicted, but has gone to jail.     The charge was defendant got caught stealing at Walmart, over $300 worth of merchandise. 

Plaintiff case dismissed, she kept sending money three or four different times, but has no proof the money was sent to defendant.  Money lost is over $600.   

Edited April 24, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[patty1h]

48 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

The way her brother smiled throughout the case, her deadpan presentation and bizarre eye makeup (with a really bad wig), felt sort of out of kilter to me.

Senior version of Cleopatra cosplay?

Edited April 24, 2023 by patty1h

[AngelaHunter]

Saw the geriatric Cleo and something about a pet, I FF, hear about poor little backyard-bred designer puppies being peddled, FF again.

Thanks, Levin, but I passed on both. Ugh.

 

[rcc]

1 minute ago, AngelaHunter said:

Saw the geriatric Cleo and something about a pet, I FF, hear about poor little backyard-bred designer puppies being peddled, FF again.

Thanks, Levin, but I passed on both. Ugh.

 

Terrible litigants today that's for sure.

[seacliffsal]

I think the hamster plaintiff is blessed to have a caring brother who takes her on vacations and calls her every day to check on her.

But, $1500 for emotional distress over a hamster?  I think the defendant really tried to help her with giving her another hamster along with trying to provide a hamster 'grief counselor' for her.  I would trust him with my pet(s).  He seemed very caring.

Puppy scam case really highlighted how 'helpless' so many people are.  Neither one of them could figure out what was going on (one just kept sending money and the other didn't really know how to report the hack, etc.).

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today's 1996, 33 ft, Winnebago sold for $18,000, and plaintiff/buyer paid $8,000 down (or $1,000 down, or $7,000 down, it's hard to tell what the actual amount was).     Plaintiff claims the signature on the title (it was owned by defendant's daughter), and seller/defendant's driver's license names were different.  Plaintiff keeps saying 'the scripts were different', but refuses to explain what the 'scripts' are, and what the difference is, and didn't keep his photo of the title and license.  

So, plaintiff claims the title is forged by defendant.   Defendant's daughter was the owner, but wanted it gone when she moved away.    So, seven weeks later plaintiff called defendant, and claims the title was forged.   Defendant held the RV for seven weeks for plaintiff to pick up.   RV passed inspection too, and defendant paid $1700+ to get repairs for the RV, out of his wallet.    After plaintiff's vacation, defendant and plaintiff went for a four hour drive, and to tell plaintiff how to operate everything on the RV.   Plaintiff never came back, and finally defendant was able to talk to plaintiff, and they agreed to hold the RV for one more week.  

Plaintiff finally calls defendant, and told defendant (seven weeks after purchase), that plaintiff changed his mind.   That's when plaintiff claims defendant forged the title.   Defendant said if plaintiff didn't like the current title, he would order another copy, since the daughter authorized the defendant father to sell the RV. 

Judge M says plaintiff needs to tell her that he wasn't deliberately holding up the sale of the RV from early summer to early fall, when RVs are much cheaper and not in demand.    Plaintiff said if defendant wouldn't go to DMV with him, the deal was off, and plaintiff wanted the deposit back. 

Defendant had another offer for $16k to sell the RV as is, and with the $7,000 deposit from plaintiff, he wouldn't consider other offers.   So, after two months of delays by plaintiff, defendant sold the RV to another buyer.   The next buyer did successfully register the RV, and get a title in his name.   

Plaintiff loses, and doesn't get his deposit back.   I'm so glad Doug in the hall is on camera, and not in the hallway with the litigants.   

Next case, Cindy hired defendant to build a cat enclosure, a Catio, for $840, and says the cats escaped, so she wants her money back.   Plaintiff is holding and petting a cat during the case.    (Catio is a secure outside cat enclosure, cats access through a window from the house, and they're safe from coyotes, and can't wander off).     Defendant charged $800 to build the Catio, he's a woodworker.   

Plaintiff claims the Catio wasn't painted, but it's medium gray, and primered, and he brought the Catio over, and asked if the paint plaintiff had would work to match her house.     Plaintiff paid $400, and it was from a box kit on Amazon, purchased for $200 by defendant.    Plaintiff thought she was getting a custom built product, not an assembled kit.    Defendant says his time assembling is worth something too.  Plaintiff put a nasty yelp review up before Catio was supposed to be delivered.   

The Yelp reviews slamming defendant were actually posted on his father and brother's business, and defendant doesn't even work there. 

Plaintiff gets her $840. 

[AngelaHunter]

15 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff keeps saying 'the scripts were different', but refuses to explain what the 'scripts' are

This was kind of entertaining. I was expecting something very different. "Too many variables" for P but we don't know what that means either. Maybe it translates to "I will never learn to operate this RV. I'm having buyer's remorse so gimme all my money back."

I love how P stated right off the bat that he and his wife were coming from church, so JM would know what wonderful, devout, honest people they are. After jerking the Def around for the whole summer - which was the best time to sell the RV - P really thinks he's entitled to the return of the 8K. And church notwithstanding, he's also a liar since we know Def would have readily gone to the DMV with him.

The def was one of the most accommodating, honest sellers ever seen here and he gets dragged into court for it. He even spends 1700$ of his own money to make the sure RV was perfect and then spends countless hours trying to teach P the operating basics of the vehicle. It seems P also absconded with the operating manual.

Doug in the hall/booth(?) seemed just as pleased as I was that the Ps lost the 8K.

34 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Next case, Cindy hired defendant to build a cat enclosure, a Catio, for $840

Then we're back to a lowlife, scamming POS in the Def. He orders this "Catio" for 200-odd$ from Amazon then charges Cindy 600$ to put it together.

The dizzy twit, Cindy, who cuddles a kitten for the duration of the case, says she fosters cats and then gives them away for free. Wrong! As someone who did cat rescue for years, I refuse to believe the ASPCA is okay with this. 

As JM said, all P had to do was Google "Catio" to find out what they cost. I just did so and the first result is Amazon.

The slimy POS has a zillion excuses for why he didn't or couldn't do what he got exorbitantly paid to do. His appearance here did more damage to his reputation than any review could have. I would certainly never hire such a dishonest liar.

[Mrs Shibbles]

On 4/24/2023 at 3:20 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Defendant asked if she's ever been convicted of a crime, and finally says no she hasn't been convicted, but has gone to jail.     The charge was defendant got caught stealing at Walmart, over $300 worth of merchandise. 

 

Wasn’t that an interesting way to put it?  Sounds like it was a regular thing, but that time she got caught.

[seacliffsal]

And yet another hour-long case.  I guess the show is going to go out on a whimper.  At least it was a bit of a different case, but what was the same was one party who should be very very wary of the other party moving forward.  The plaintiff was scary to me and I think the defendant needs to be very careful.  And all over composting albeit on another person's property.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Just hearing the start of the composting case, I decided that plaintiff was trespassing, and having others on defendant's property is leading to liability for her.     I don't see how defendant should be required to allow community composting on her property, or allow him to store his tools on her property.  

I'm glad I watched long enough to see the vile text messages from plaintiff, and to hear about his years in the slammer for a Ponzi scheme.   I'm guessing that's federal prison.  

I'm not easily scared by anyone, but plaintiff scared me.  

Edited April 26, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, seacliffsal said:

The plaintiff was scary to me and I think the defendant needs to be very careful.

In the first few minutes, the defendant seemed to be a bit of an airhead and didn't understand anything about composting. However as the case progressed, the plaintiff started to creep me out. Some of his text messages were bizarre and really offensive, and his whole head injury/brain surgery/button my shirt for me saga seemed very strange. I agree the whole hour was too long but if it had been cut, we might have missed out on his 6 years in prison and multi-million dollar restitution for a ponzi scheme scam which affected my opinion of him. If he wants to do composting somewhere, why didn't he use his mother's home, where he sometimes lives instead of some random stranger's place? If I was the defendant I would be cautious, I think the plaintiff may be unstable and may not be very well connected to reality, he certainly doesn't understand basic person to person interactions.

[AngelaHunter]

Just now, DoctorK said:

In the first few minutes, the defendant seemed to be a bit of an airhead and didn't understand anything about composting. However as the case progressed, the plaintiff started to creep me out.

Agree. The def was a little goofy and long-winded, but the compost-happy Mommy's boy is a nut. I don't know if he was always a nut, or became one after his brain injury which he ignored for a month or so.

I was surprised to hear that someone who is so in tune with nature that he wants to fill everyone's property (except that of his Momma and his girlfriend, who won't allow it) with compost is a felon who spent 6 years in the slammer for stealing and ripping people off. Not very harmonious or respectful of karma!

Def should have given him the boot the first time she came home and saw that the one compost heap had multiplied into three, platforms were added, along with giant lids for these chicken-wire things, as P virtually took over her property. She was way too nice to him, even after he called her a liar, a scammer (look who's talking - the major scammer himself!), and a bimbo(?) and continued to ridicule her for not wanting a ton of steaming heaps in her yard. As JM said, Def didn't need to give any explanations for why she wanted his ton of crap off her property.

The only person I felt for was P's mommy. At what is probably an advanced age she still has to take care of this burden with his incarceration, his cracked dome, and his compost mania.

I'm fine with my neighbours. We say "hello" and make a bit of small talk, but that's it. You never know who you're dealing with until your yard gets turned into a recycling facility by some scamming, ex-con kook. If I were the Def I would erect a tall fence with locks on the gates.

A whole hour of this was tedious, but of course, I realize it wasn't an hour. Subtract Droopy Dawg, unseen Hall Clown, and endless commercials, and it was probably not even 35 minutes.

The Levin-Thing just can NOT resist being heard and/or seen, no matter how irrelevant, useless, stupid, or vulgar his comments are or how increasingly scary his mug is. "Composting is good", he informs us. No shit, Sherlock.  I just don't know how I will get along without his guidance. 😢

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I don't see how defendant should be required to allow community composting on her property, or allow him to store his tools on her property

She wasn't required to do it. She chose to allow it until it spiraled into insanity.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I didn't say that correctly.    I meant plaintiff thought because he wanted to have a big composting set up on defendant's property that she owed it to him, and all of humanity to let him squat on her property.       

The defendant was right to be scared of plaintiff, and his delusions, and his aggression.   I'm hoping after this was filmed that defendant didn't have any problems with plaintiff, but I doubt it. 

I think that since the show is going bye-bye, that they are showing the full case, which is usually cut down to 20 or 30 minutes minus commercials, Levin, the judges discussions, etc.  So, they cut the case down to an hour, minus commercials more like 40 minutes, and they can show what they already filmed.   They save filming more cases, and since the show is going away, they save on production costs, and still have cases to air, even if they're not interesting. 

Edited April 27, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[Pepper the Cat]

That was tedious. I do not enjoy these one case shows.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I meant plaintiff thought because he wanted to have a big composting set up on defendant's property that she owed it to him, and all of humanity to let him squat on her property.       

Probably my fault for the misunderstanding! Oh, wait - no, of course, it's not my fault. Must be somebody else's. 😊

[seacliffsal]

Today's first case involved a tenant/landlord dispute, so same old-same old.  Except for the fact that Judge Milian refused to asked the most important question of the entire case.  The landlord stated that the tenant flushed all kinds of baby wipes down the toilet leading to plumbing issues.  When asked, the plaintiff stated (indignantly I might add) that she would never do such a thing as she does not even use toilet paper as she thinks it is really bad for the environment.  So, did JM ask the immediately necessary question to be asked?  So what do you do if you don't use toilet paper?   No, no she did not.  JM refused to ask what could have been one of the best questions ever to be asked on this show!  JM will ask endless questions about family personal issues, gush over young girls who remind her of her daughters, and a myriad of other mundane comments and questions.  Yet, she had an opportunity to truly conduct an investigative interview and did not do so.  Yep, I get it, the show has been cancelled and she is just waiting it out for her new show to come.

[Paperclips]

Terrible episode - maybe since its ending they are all just calling it in.  First Plaintiff looked high as hell.  They had to find a witness who was who knows where.  It was bad.

[DoctorK]

I tuned in and heard the tenant defiantly bragging that she couldn't have caused the plumbing problem because she doesn't even use toilet paper because it is bad for the earth. I immediately bailed out to watch an old rerun of CHiPs. One more litigant that I hope to never be around, especially not downwind.

[AngelaHunter]

56 minutes ago, seacliffsal said:

she does not even use toilet paper as she thinks it is really bad for the environment.  So, did JM ask the immediately necessary question to be asked?  So what do you do if you don't use toilet paper?  

I've got the answer, even though I dearly wish I didn't. I bet JM knew too, which is why she didn't ask.

They use what are "family cloths" - rags, which are then put in their washing machine so they end up with a washing machine full of shit. Disgusting.

The bug-eyes, the odd-looking, silent baby daddy(?), the simple string of fake pearls, and the scribbly chest tat, the  BSC def, with her, "Are you kidding me?" to JM, her declaration that she let bug-eyed baby-wipe lover stay because she needs the money, her utter lack of one scrap of evidence was all very entertaining, to me at least. They nearly made JM lose it with their inability to answer simple questions or STFU when told to.

Def's goofball ex-hubby who, "for some reason" wasn't permitted to enter the courtroom actually seemed like the sanest person here, although that's not saying much.

P squawks about vermin and bugs infesting the place and raw sewage flooding it. She had to stay in this hellhole because she couldn't afford anything better but decided this was the perfect time to have a baby.

I can't help it. P, for the duration of the case:

 

 

 

[patty1h]

If she thinks that being all wide eyed makes her look believable and trustworthy, she is wrong.  Another case of not being sure who was lying - they both seemed suss.

Count me in as one who was waiting for JM to ask about the TP issue.  I've heard of these "family rags" -  maybe this was discussed but the producers decided to spare the audience from the gross details of this practice and cut out the conversation {shrug}.

[AngelaHunter]

25 minutes ago, patty1h said:

I've heard of these "family rags" -  maybe this was discussed but the producers decided to spare the audience from the gross details of this practice and cut out the conversation {shrug}.

If they did this I thank them, although I'm sure they had to fight The Levin over it, considering how much that butt-sniffer adores disgusting and/or "stinky" things and practices.

I'm pretty sure I heard of this years ago on a YT vid concerning measures taken by frugal people to save money. I thought I might get some tips. Not so, and I've never forgotten this grossness.🤢

[Pepper the Cat]

She probably had a bidet.

[CrazyInAlabama]

So today's ridiculous first case, a woman complained because next door neighbor's off leash dog constantly runs up to her barking.   Judge M jumps all over plaintiff, for complaining to animal control about the dog harassing her, and being off leash.     Ridiculous, if someone's animal is running at you on your property, and there's a leash law, call animal control.   Just because JM doesn't think it's right, that doesn't mean you let your dog harass others on their own property. 

Edited April 28, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

Simply awful cases, full of awful people. I don't know what the story really was in the first case and the only thing for sure is that P likes to fudge the truth in hopes of getting a big windfall (both of them want thousands of dollars) for Def opening his car door and hitting hers. "I saw it...I heard it...I saw it...I heard the "WHUMP". I'm nervous. (I always lie when I'm nervous)". Turns out she only heard it and when JM saw how banged up her beater already was she was not impressed with P's claim for damages. This petty, stupid neighbour war will never end. Idiots.

"What is wrong with you people?" JM wants to know. A question that could be asked on a daily basis on this show.

I gave up on the next one. "My boyfriend punched me in the back of the head so the bruise wouldn't show. I crawled into the bathroom. He followed me and started kicking me. After that, I wanted to "reconnect" with him for financial reasons."

Sure. New iPhones and computers don't grow on trees and what's a little punch in the head and a few kicks in exchange? No pain, no gain. Hey if you want to be a punching bag for this inarticulate (with such garbled speech my CC couldn't translate a lot of what he said), violent creep, go for it and enjoy but you deserve to lose custody of your poor kid who witnessed said violence.  Ugh. I gave up in disgust after the words "financial reasons".

I can't see even a professional prostitute going back with a client who beat her up, just for the money.

[rcc]

Glad I missed today's show.

[AngelaHunter]

Well, I learned something today. I never knew Porsche made trucks 16 years ago or ever, for that matter.

I also learned that if someone absconds with your 10-year-old fuzzy dice you can get a replacement value which JM found to be 11.99$.

I did enjoy the sacrificial lamb, Ms. Dan, who works on billing and such at the shop. Her boss and the mechanic threw her under the bus and sent her here to defend the shop when she knows absolutely nothing about this car and presents hearsay as evidence. "Steve told me..." She does know that "usually" the battery of a car is under the hood even though in this case it's under the driver's seat. Steve could have at least written that down for her to save her more embarrassment.

I bet when poor Ms. Dan was informed that she was getting a big TeeVee appearance she squealed with joy and spent the whole day spiffing up her hair and makeup, never thinking she might be asked questions and have zero answers.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Woman moves from Staten Island to SC, hires defendant's company, he delivers her stuff to storage in SC.  A year later she has her stuff taken by another company from storage to her house, and she now claims the first company from New York stole her property, and damaged a lot of it.   The dryer that plaintiff claims is a year old looks like it fell off of a truck on the interstate, and can't possibly be a year old.    

So, plaintiff is claiming $3, 049 worth of missing and damaged stuff from the previous move?   And plaintiff claims that defendant didn't unwrap anything, but standard practice is to leave the plastic wrap on the furniture, but take the moving blankets.    

Judge M really lays into plaintiff, dismisses her case.      I love that the mover plaintiff hired to move from the storage unit to her new place didn't bring any help, and plaintiff had to get two friends or relatives to help the amateur mover.     

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I love that the mover plaintiff hired to move from the storage unit to her new place didn't bring any help, and plaintiff had to get two friends or relatives to help the amateur mover.     

Was he a mover? P hemmed and hawed and finally said it was some guy her daughter called, maybe from one of those "Need money bad!" CL ads.

"But, yah honah!" Def deliberately vandalized and broke all her particle board furniture, just ripped the legs off for fun! Oh, and stole her clothes. Well, maybe they would fit his momma who was here to support her 40-year-old son, but I doubt it.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 And plaintiff claims that defendant didn't unwrap anything, but standard practice is to leave the plastic wrap on the furniture, but take the moving blankets. 

Of course. Movers can't afford to be giving away those padded blankets to everyone they move.

The entitled woman who thought she could keep canceling the dates she wanted for the vacation rental and still get her deposit back was kind of thick - for a teacher - and the case was boring.

It was more interesting hearing how JJohn got chased off the golf course by an angry goose. He's right. They're scary! I would run too.

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

On 4/27/2023 at 4:08 PM, seacliffsal said:

The landlord stated that the tenant flushed all kinds of baby wipes down the toilet leading to plumbing issues.  When asked, the plaintiff stated (indignantly I might add) that she would never do such a thing as she does not even use toilet paper as she thinks it is really bad for the environment.  So, did JM ask the immediately necessary question to be asked?  So what do you do if you don't use toilet paper?  

Besides the whole "family rags" situation, I know a person whose family places all their used TP in a separate small container lined with a plastic bag which is then removed and thrown out later.  Yes. But I cannot imagine the plaintiff being organized enough to have a separate use container (with a lid). And her buggy eyes are probably glued open from the fake eyelash glue.  

[seacliffsal]

The plaintiff in the moving to SC case seemed like a scammer.  Everything was brand new and perfect.  Yup.  And to pay $2500 for not only the move (NY-SC!) but for them to pack up everything?  Absolutely a bargain!  I guess it was really only $2000 because he gave her $500 for the dryer.  However, the mover pretty much better start having customers sign a contract-can't really use the "but she's family" argument when it was the first time he ever met her.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, seacliffsal said:

However, the mover pretty much better start having customers sign a contract-can't really use the "but she's family" argument when it was the first time he ever met her.

Yeah, everyone is all, "But I trusted him/her! He/she was like family! (even if we only met 3 days ago)" until this near-stranger rips them off.

[DoctorK]

Today’s first case made my brain hurt. The plaintiff wanted to relocate her office and wanted to rent a new space. She (apparently at random) located the defendant who had space available for sublet. The defendant told her exactly how many square feet and provided pictures of the space. Plaintiff loved it, paid $200 deposit and asked to defendant to paint the space for her. Then the plaintiff decided that the space “looked big” but it was going to be too small so defendant offered another larger space which the plaintiff also required the defendant to paint for her. Plaintiff shows up and starts to move her stuff in (and buys a new large bed – apparently a hospital type) and decides that this space is also too small for all of her stuff. JM seems exasperated that the plaintiff was unable or too lazy to measure her old office space and doesn’t have any clue what 150 square feet means and calls her out for poor planning which prompts the plaintiff proclaim that she is a very good planner (see why the brain hurts?). She is hopelessly inept and has a classic wide eyed look of blank stupidity as she spouts complete nonsense. Sadly, because the defendant didn’t have written permission from the management company (as required by her lease) to sublet, the lease and whole agreement is unenforceable. The idiot plaintiff won and thinks that she did everything correctly and will go to her grave convinced that she is a wonderful planner.

The fence case was boring. The plaintiff was foolish and the defendant was not up to doing an elegant fence. Plaintiff showed a lot of pictures, one of which showed horrible looking 2x4s reinforcing the top pf the fence – later we found out this was temp fixes for the old fence, not done by the defendant. Also, her old fence was in terrible condition. She expected the new fence would have “kick boards” all along the bottom, a nice feature to have but not common around where I live. To prove her point she showed a picture of the new gate and pointed to bottom 2x4 of the gate frame and said that was what should have been done all along the fence; sorry, that was not a “kick board” - it was the bottom part of the gate frame. I think the plaintiff took it for granted that the new fence would be just as fancy as her old one, fence guy did a low end job, the bottoms of the slats on the slope should have been trimmed to match the slope (not hard, I’ve done for some fencing) or just screw on a “kick board” for cosmetic purposes. I really didn’t like either litigant.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Today’s first case made my brain hurt.

Not even the huge, black problematic glasses could disguise what an idiot she is.

The def. told her the space was 156 sq. ft, which is very small, like 10' x 15'?   But P, this "very good planner" was clueless about that, didn't have the brains (or maybe she doesn't know how to use a tape measure) to measure her current space, or didn't know how to find how big or small it is, got there and said, "Too small!" Her attitude says that this is the Def's fault.

So def. shows her, in person, another space she has and P agrees to take it after a viewing. Def has it painted for her. Then she orders some kind of bed and brings all her junk and realizes that the "angles" of the space won't work. It's TOO SMALL and maybe those angles only appeared or the walls shifted like something in Harry Potter after she ordered this bed.

But even after being given the size and seeing it with her very own eyeballs, it's the Def's fault that it's not working for her and she wants her money back. "It's too small for all the crap I want to cram into it but that's not my fault!"

Unfortunately, we find out def. who is only renting the space is not allowed to sublet it, which is stated on her lease. "Technically" that is true, she admits to JM who informs her that this "technicality" means she can't do it. Oh. She knew very well she was not permitted to do this. If Def had done things right, P wouldn't get back anything. I hated that she got it all.

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

The fence case was boring.

Those two got on my last nerve. I decided to pass the time by taking a drink every time I heard "kickboard". I had to open another bottle of wine and I'm going to sue the def. for that.

As JM is leaving, the Fence Master - who looks as though he spends more time cultivating and grooming his facial hair than on fence-building -  is calling after her, "Honor, honor! I can't talk with yoooo??"

That would be a "NO".

[AngelaHunter]

OH, mah gawd. I thought I accidentally stumbled on an episode of "Christina's Court" where all the litigants appeared to be supplied by some third-rate casting call place and I have a clear memory of the "Naked Cowboy" appearing there. 

I do not understand why JM allowed "Django", the Ohio cowboy, to keep that ridiculous hat on. There was so much BS and meandering tributaries going on here (Django makes grandiose gestures and wants to show JM pictures of him and his stepdaughter to prove what a great stepdad he is) I lost interest.

Then we had the anxiety-ridden Plaintiff, permanently emotionally distressed and afraid to leave his home. He wants 2100$ after he sustained a pin-prick-sized bite from a dog being walked by the Def, "Ms.Plastic Surgery Nightmares" in Beverly Hills. P keeps rubbing his face to demonstrate how distraught he is. I've had bites from deer flies that looked a lot worse than what he had and somehow managed to soldier on.

JM decides that this savage, traumatizing attack is worth 100$.

[Razzberry]

I've had mosquito bites worse than that.  I can't believe he went to "Urgent Care", albeit the next day, and received some "salve" for this vicious bite.   Panic attacks  not covered. 

[DoctorK]

33 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

JM allowed "Django", the Ohio cowboy, to keep that ridiculous hat on.

I was also surprised that JM didn't say something about this but I think he really rocked the overall look for an old guy who looks to be in fairly good shape. I also liked the wooden beads on his braids, and thought he did a good job of explaining the special aspects of his truck insurance coverage, and that he explained that his truck was not running or moving, he was unloading a spare wheel (which he showed a picture of how the wheel rides on the truck w/o a trailer attached. I think he showed that the plaintiff lied about how the damage occurred, plaintiff saying that the defendant backed his truck into the plaintiff's car. I am sorry that I didn't notice but I hope the defendant was wearing a big-ass belt buckle to go along with his spiffy leather suspenders (I want to get a set like that).

Second case, plaintiff was looking for a bonanza, didn't get one. As for the defendant, I will only say that some people obviously don't own a mirror. Please tell me that was a halloween wig, not her actual hair.

[AngelaHunter]

1 minute ago, DoctorK said:

I think he really rocked the overall look for an old guy who looks to be in fairly good shape.

Maybe if he had come directly from ridin' the ranges in Montana, although I'm sure even real cowboys might take their hats off in court. I thought it was a bit affected for a truck driver from Ohio, but that's just me. Maybe all truck drivers now have a schtick. Or maybe I got jaded by the Naked Cowboy. At least this one didn't show up in his underpants.

I was put off by JM raving about P's precious daughter and her volleyball or whatever it was when it seems special, precious daughter is a bit of a spoiled liar who already smashed up the car Daddy bought her and then fingered uber-loving stepdaddy, who holds her hair back when she pukes and tried to blame all the damage on him. From what we heard it appears momma has little to do with her daughter.

6 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

Please tell me that was a halloween wig, not her actual hair.

Definitely, a wig. The youthful Shirley Temple ringlets did not correspond with the savagely surgically enhanced face.

[jalady]

OMFG!  Unless you’re in a dog park, keep your goddamn dogs on a leash, people!!!  Be they pit bulls or chihuahuas.  I’m so sick of hearing “my dog‘s friendly, s/he doesn’t bite “.  Do they have teeth?  Then they can bite.

And I’d award punitive damages in every. single. case. where an off leash dog attacked a person or another dog.  Because these owners purposely take their dog(s) off the leash.  I’m sure they don’t expect the dogs to attack, but they damn sure purposely have them off leash!  They’re breaking the law and a $500 punitive damages award may make them think twice the next time.