The People's Court - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, Bazinga said:

His end commentary was equally stupid and unrelated to the case. 

Well, his commentary is always stupid and cheesy.

Thanks, Bazinga, for giving us actual legal info! I bet you never say things like, "Picker? HE HARDLY KNEW 'ER!"

[AngelaHunter]

I didn't mind today's cases. In the first case, about rent between roommates, the meek and mild P admits he let the amoral, grifting, lying squatter Def, his friend, avoid paying rent for months. JM wants to know why. Well, this was his first experience in the brutal "Real World" so he thought it best to ignore the whole thing until Def moved out.  The def is a repulsive liar, who says he gave P 2500$ of the 5K in cash he had "lying around". JM detests him and gives P everything he requested, some 2500-odd$.

P assures Doug in the hall that he's learned his lesson. Doug sounds dubious but congratulates him. Def keeps lying in the hall, and throws in the age-old cry of the scammer: "It is what it is!" It's shocking that the Def is such a piece of shit at such a young age.

Levin helpfully informs us that receipts are a good thing, so you should get them!

The second case made me give a complete pass to the first very young P's naivety. Plaintiff, Mr. Ingram, who is probably 3- 3 1/2 times the 1st P's age, sees a Mercedes for sale on the side of a road. That it's 23 years old and registered in another state doesn't give him pause. Mr. Rosada, the Def seller, and his buddies all tell Mr. Ingram this is a "good car", so why would he bother getting it checked at a mechanic?

He test-drove it to Mcdonald's, had a burger, went back, and said SOLD! He bargains it down from 5K to 4K and then days or weeks later, depending on whose story you believe, the "check engine light drops". He wanted to drive it from NJ to his home in Georgia. P takes it back to D who says it could be a hose that cracked due to age or the gas cap put on incorrectly. He adds gas, puts the cap on, and says the light stayed off.

Mr. Ingram no longer wants this ancient veehickle and leaves it with Def. He wants 5K - 4K for the car and 1K for "pain and suffering". Sure. He seems to think buying an old car on the side of the road offers the same warranty he might get at a dealer.

Def says he'll try to sell it again and if he does he'll give the P his money back. JM gives P a generous two weeks to pick up his car. Maybe it IS just a cracked hose, but P doesn't care.

JM tries to make P understand that this is an "as-is" sale but he doesn't seem to grasp that since - as he tells Doug -  he thinks everyone should be "nice" and Def definitely is not nice. At all! I don't know if he ever picked it up since I was not willing to listen to Levin bloviating for nothing.

Edited July 3, 2023 by AngelaHunter

[DoctorK]

Another day and we have more litigants to despise. On the first case, it took me a while to figure out what was going on. I think the bottom line is that the defendant was planning to chisel the plaintiff from the beginning by agreeing to $50 per bedazzled Croc (getting pretty ritzy here) then trying to argue it down to $25. Meanwhile the defendant gives the plaintiff an incorrect address to ship to so the Post Office couldn’t deliver and held the package for pick up. Then the defendant (allegedly) went to the PO and showed her ID but if I heard correctly, it had a completely different address, not just two digits transposed, so she claims that she couldn’t get the package. Meanwhile texts go back and forth and plaintiff reiterates that the shoes are $50 each pair. Then I think the defendant did manage to get the package (according to the Post Office documentation) and decided to just stiff the plaintiff and expected that the young and inexperienced plaintiff would just let it go. I am glad the defendant didn’t get away with her scam.

The second case was a change of pace from litigants arguing over $500 cars that they bought from a guy in a parking lot. The plaintiff was foolish about almost everything and the defendant was dishonest about everything. I agree with JM who raised a concern about an 18 year old kid “needing” a $50,000 car (a used Audi). The whole deal is a mess. The plaintiff listed the car for $60K but agreed to sell to the kid for $48K (or maybe $50K), the kid needed to get his parents’ permission to take the money out of his investment account (I am unclear on this, was this maybe a trust fund?) so he lies to his father about the price. Then the defendant and daddy instead of just buying the car, go to a dealer of some kind (who turns out to be sleazy) who will buy the car (with a bouncing check) then sell it to the defendant with a loan (at 15% interest) but with a bunch of “required” extra charges like a warranty and other garbage for another $4000. The kid gets the car and drives the plaintiff home and begs her to give back the $1500 deposit he had given to the plaintiff originally so he could conceal the cost of the car from his father, which the plaintiff foolishly does. I think the case was actually more confused than my description. The plaintiff was foolish but the defendant was a jerk. Apparently his family is very well off while he is an idiot and a liar and a cheap chiseler no matter how much money he may or may not have. I also take note of his “witness” who never spoke, a bedraggled Emo punk-ass jerk, just like the defendant except taller.

[AngelaHunter]

34 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

On the first case, it took me a while to figure out what was going on. I think the bottom line is that the defendant was planning to chisel the plaintiff from the beginning by agreeing to $50 per bedazzled Croc (getting pretty ritzy here) then trying to argue it down to $25.

"If you let me finish!" Def snarks to JM. Why would JM do that when she knows she'll just hear more lies? That the insolent, brutish-looking def with the major attitude problem was actually willing to appear here and detail how she ripped off the P for a 50$ pair of Crocs with tacky dollar store bling hot-glued all over them boggled my mind. 

She had no time for this nonsense. She had major family issues. Well, I've had family issues too, but unlike hers, mine never involved calling the police. I see why she didn't want to talk about that which I'm willing to bet may have ended with her cuffed in the back of a cop car.

So scary was she I was truly worried for Doug in the Hall as he was baiting her.

38 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

The second case was a change of pace from litigants arguing over $500 cars that they bought from a guy in a parking lot. The plaintiff was foolish about almost everything

She is the winner of some sort of TPC lifetime achievement award. She is the absolute dumbest litigant/plaintiff/woman/human EVER seen on this show and that is saying a LOT. How has she lived this long? How did she buy a 100K Audi (she's not too sure how much it actually was) in 2019?

She decides to peddle this luxury car on FB, of course. JM wants to know the Kelley bluebook value but P seems to think that's only opinion and she's offering it at 75K, IIRC.

This 18-year-old little twerp, Yamin, tells her he wants it. They settle on 48K  (I guess money means nothing to her)and dopey, brainless P sees no problem with this kid coming up with all that money.

I guess she believed him when he told her, as he told JM here, that he "runs an investment fund". 😆 JM is not so guillible.

Turns out the investment fund is composed of Mommy and Daddy, who are fully in agreement that their precious, darling little boy really needs a 50K car in which to show off and to tool around in, considering his exalted status in the world of high finance.

The twerp and his overly-indulgent, ridiculous parental units are one thing, but to me what is way worse is the idiot Plaintiff, who agrees to go along with whatever this spoiled little shit tells her ("I trusted him!"). Imagine! I watched this whole case gaping at the truly dazzling stupidity of this middle-aged woman. I'm sure every scammer on the planet is trying to track her down.

49 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

I also take note of his “witness” who never spoke, a bedraggled Emo punk-ass jerk, just like the defendant except taller.

😄 And they shall inherit the earth.

In the hall, the little shit informs Doug the car loan has a 15% interest rate. How much will it cost Daddy by the time it's paid for, that is, if the proud Daddy's shrimpy progeny doesn't wreck it in the meantime which I'm sure he will?

[rcc]

Today's second case was the most frustrating one ever. Unbelievably gullible plaintiff with an entitled little jerk blaming her for everything. 

[seacliffsal]

The second case today about the $50,000 used Audi for an 18 year old "investment" advisor just shows how right P.T. Barnum was when he said "there's a sucker born every minute."  The fact that the plaintiff not only believed everything that the defendant said, but was given a bad check by the dealer and still went through with this scam, er, deal just shows how little common sense there is these days.  And, that the defendant views himself as an investment broker/advisor/scammer shows how people are just coming up with ways to scam/swindle money from others.  What qualifies him?  Well, I guess having such an expensive luxury car is what will qualify him (and according to the American Greed episodes that I watch, people will let total strangers invest [scam] their money as long as they look successful).  I think JM should have been harder on him (along with being harder on the defendant in the first case who didn't want to pay $50 for bedazzled crocs.  Sigh.  I wonder what company hired her to be a trainer; I wouldn't want to be trained by her.

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, seacliffsal said:

(and according to the American Greed episodes that I watch, people will let total strangers invest [scam] their money as long as they look successful).

Yes, if someone - even some punk-ass kid - is driving a used Audi his daddy is paying for it must mean he's successful.  I guess he is. He was able to find someone so stupid even he could snow her.

Yesterday as I cleared out another metric ton of spam/scams from an email account I was wondering how many people are falling for everything from "Grow Your Unit to 15 Inches" to "Send your informations to get your 35 million united state dollars (ONLY)!". There must be a lot of them, as unbelievable as that seems, or the scammers wouldn't bother doing it.

Yesterday's plaintiff is extremely lucky she eventually got her money from all these hustlers.

15 hours ago, seacliffsal said:

I wonder what company hired her to be a trainer; I wouldn't want to be trained by her.

Me either! 😦 I wonder what she was training these people to do, with her dishonesty, belligerence, and poor grammar.

[AngelaHunter]

Listening to the first P made my ears bleed. Hearing about the Def, a man past middle age who gets intoxicated and has so little self-control he pitches a fit and kicks in P's door made me roll my eyes.

Reading his dire threats to P - he's going to set her car on fire, she better watch her back, and he's getting his gun made me frown in puzzlement when P said she wouldn't take out a restraining order on him, or even stop the text 'conversating' they did. Oh, he also called her a "B". All this property damage and threats of violence resulted from some card playing at P's apartment when some other players ribbed or insulted Def, who doesn't seem to believe P's explanation that it's "a black thing" to do that.

Def says he had a stroke 4 days after all this BS went on. Not too surprising. I guess all the door-kicking and drinking made him blow a gasket.

P gets $200 or so for the busted door (def paid some I guess), but not her moving costs after the landlord declined to rent her another place in the building and wanted her out.  She called the police and the fire department that night to finish smashing the door down with a battering ram. I understand why the landlord thought "Uh uh!"

This case gave us the Daily Words of Wisdom (DWOW) from the short-ass Levin, who waxed philosophical: "Relationships can be confusing".

There you have it.

JM talks about one of the splendid daughters, who was allowed to drive solo at the age of "15 or 16"  (really, JM??) and hit someone's car in a parking lot. She called Momma to ask what to do. Momma told her to leave a note on the other person's car, which Perfect Daughter did. The other driver calls and gushes to JM about what a wonderful, adorable, responsible daughter she has! That was before this person sticks JM with an 800$ tab - 300$ for the car repair and $500 to rent a van since that's what she was driving. Now I know why JM got so pissed off during a similar case the other day.

 

[DoctorK]

Today’s case was boring and trivial. I think the plaintiff photographer was a bit of a jerk and really overreaching in his damage claim. However, I hated the defendant. She is a babbling, chattering air head. JM jumped down the plaintiff’s throat when he talked while she was talking to the defendant but let the defendant run on, talk over the judge, talk to the plaintiff, and just run her mouth in extended babbling making no real sense. This case should have rated a fifteen minute segment at the most, not a whole hour. I tend to believe what someone suggested above that the show is going off the air and they are just slapping together left over junk to make “new” episodes.

[patty1h]

The photographer/model case sounded like a mess in the making.   If things work out, everyone can go home happy - the photog with pics to advertise his work and the model with pics for their portfolio.  The problem starts when neither of these people are paying/getting paid, so neither has any obligation to hold up their end of this "bargain".   

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

However, I hated the defendant. She is a babbling, chattering air head.

I gave up halfway through this. While I believe the sexual improprieties - which seemed to be aimed at other women since he told the D to cover up her huge breasts a little -  of which Mr. Potato Head is accused (cuz it always comes to that) the motor-mouthed, stump-dumb, 215lb, neophyte, Instagram(?) model, Zanaysia, (sounds like one of those drugs being pushed on late-night TV) in the janky burgundy wig and tarantula eyelashes was unbearable. One hour of this?

I turned the sound off and just searched for my daily fix of Levin's "DWOW". At least there I was not disappointed.

After hearing JM use the words "protect the models" a dozen times, ol' raddled Harve informs us:

"It's always a good idea to protect your models."

Oh, Levin! How can I ever quit you?

Edited July 6, 2023 by AngelaHunter
Got too excited about Levin and left out a word.

[rcc]

I wonder if Levin will be part of the new show. Different production studio and all.

 

[AngelaHunter]

7 minutes ago, rcc said:

I wonder if Levin will be part of the new show. Different production studio and all.

 

Oh, god - I hope so! If not I may have to start watching TMZ to get my daily dose of his bot mots.

[Bazinga]

I sat through the whole one hour case.  Judge Milan was at her pro-female, males are bad, worst the whole case.  As usual, the judge showed favoritism to a young girl her daughters' age.  The case was about photographers and models who get together at events for photographers to photograph models for free.  JM seemed perplexed by the whole concept.  She despised that the photographers (obviously, in the judge's mind, all males) have the upper hand over the models (obviously, in the judge's mind, all females) and own the rights to the photos taken and are just supposed to give some to the models to use and credit the photographers.  Sometimes, the models do not get the photos both parties stated.  Judge Milan initially decides this cannot be true, as it is unfair to the models.  She tells the plaintiff that since she doesn't think this makes sense for the models to sometimes get nothing, she assumes he is lying.  The defendant agreed with him, so he obviously was not lying.  Of course, since the judge thinks this is unfair to the models, she blames the plaintiff photographer for this, even though he is not the organizer of the event but just a participant and ignores the fact that models are submitting to this for a reason; they are getting free photos done by professional photographers whose work they can see and choose to be shot by.  The models can then use these photos for their portfolios to get work in the modeling industry.  In other words, this scheme benefits the models too and they are not innocent victims of sleazy photographers.  Much time was wasted on the judge trying to understand the concept, misunderstanding the concept, being aggressively angry at the concept, and blaming the plaintiff for the concept being unfair to the models.  JM suggested a few times that the models organize themselves against such unfair practices.  The defendant model in this case posted a few of the plaintiff's photos online without crediting him for his work.  The judge seemed to think his wanting credit for his work was unimportant though, obviously, an artist should be able to protect their work.  That concept should go without saying to a judge but not so in this case.  The defendant signed a separate agreement after the fact with the plaintiff regarding her usage of the photos, which she agrees she violated by posting on Instagram without crediting the photographer, but she removed the photos from Instagram quickly, as she realized the plaintiff "was a stickler" about things and would not like his not being credited.  She removed the photos after getting 51 likes, so some time probably passed.  In texts back and forth, plaintiff discussed editing some of the pictures for the defendant but nowhere in the agreement or texts did he promise to give the pictures to the defendant (but JM would not allow him to point this out).  Plaintiff is suing for $4,000 for the model using five of his pictures without crediting him (I think he is suing for $1,000 for each use but missadded and ended up suing for only $4,000), which, again, the defendant admits doing.  I assume the agreement sets the penalty amount for each usage but JM pointed out early on that she was not going to allow the agreement to set the damages in this case.  JM decides that the photographer also violated the agreement by not giving the model the edited pictures, which I do not think was in the agreement and, even in the texts about editing, he discusses her picking pictures and his editing them but doesn't promise the model the pictures anywhere.  When the plaintiff would not agree that he had also violated the agreement, JM got mad at him and gave him only $50, as she thought the usage was minor and quick and she really didn't like the plaintiff.  The model defendant's defense here is that she is a new model and he is being mean in going after someone just starting out like her and he commented about her breasts being large and that she should cover up and she and others didn't like that he was commenting about their bodies (I think photographers comment about model's bodies all the time from my TV watching).  JM missed that the penalty for the use is meant to discourage such noncredit violations and damages should not have been measured by how bad the violations were in her mind but that she used his photos without crediting him as she had agreed to do.  JM lectured the poor young girl that she should not just sign agreements without thinking.  Her response was that she was rushed and he bullied her into agreeing, though she knew she should not have signed.  Of course, the judge has to protect the poor female "victim" and not really hold her to the agreement she signed by giving the plaintiff di minimis damages.  As DoctorK wrote, JM jumped down the plaintiff's throat, reprimanded him more harshly for speaking out of turn then the defendant, who also spoke out of turn and did so more often, and blamed him for the inequity of the whole arrangement that others participate in freely.  Then Doug in the hallway asked the plaintiff what he learned while kind of laughing at him for only recovering $50.  The plaintiff, correctly in my opinion, pointed out that he learned he should not go on The People's Court as he has sued three times successfully in similar cases.  Doug was saying any court would have found the same way.  The plaintiff disagreed, as do I.  But, technically, the plaintiff prevailed, but the judge, IMO, because she didn't like the plaintiff and has a pro young female slant, felt bad for the defendant and thought the injury minor, awarded little damages.  But the verdict proves the plaintiff was right, just that the judge's, in my opinion, biases resulted in a small damage amount.  

I thought JM was awful in this case.  She treated the (male) plaintiff like he is the bad guy and the (female) defendant like the victim who needs to be protected from the consequences of her own actions and agreement she signed.  Must have reminded her of how she would feel if this was her daughters.  I really disliked JM in this case.  I thought she was blatantly sexist and kind of obnoxious in how she behaved.  I think she should be embarrassed by how she conducted this trial as well as her decision.   

I went to the ModelMayhem website mentioned and saw the end product of such relationships and how this is a way for photographers and models (there are male models, too) to connect and get themselves and their work out there.  I don't think there is anything abusive about this situation. 

Just want to note that I am not anti-female/pro-male bias person.  I just dislike when I feel JM shows certain biases such as in this case as discussed above.

Edited July 10, 2023 by Bazinga

[Guest]

I despise myself for even suggesting this but I think Levin (rightfully) disagreed with JM and Doug. 

His emphasis that the plaintiffs complaint is a big deal pretty much negated her conclusion.  He was right. And like Bazinga I too was really annoyed with JM. My irritation meter went haywire.  It’s not just her tunnel vision but her main flaw is that she does not listen.  She hears, but she is busy preparing in her mind a response that proves she’s right and not just that you’re wrong but that you’re stupidity wrong. 

I’ll miss this group but certainly not the show. 

[AngelaHunter]

Wow. Thanks, @Bazinga for this in-depth analysis and for lasting through this whole case.  Just listening to that "model" had me frantically reaching for the FF button.

8 hours ago, Bazinga said:

As usual, the judge showed favoritism to a young girl her daughters' age. 

She's a young girl? I thought she looked about 30, but that's how much I was paying attention.

8 hours ago, Bazinga said:

she agrees she violated by posting on Instagram, but she removed the photos from Instagram quickly,

I did hear that part. First, she said she removed them immediately, then when it was obvious she was lying, she changed it to "that day". I was expecting JM to nail her for that but, IIRC, not a word was said about the discrepancy (lie).

Even though I didn't listen to this case, I have griped in the past about JM's extreme bias towards women the age of her Darling Daughters, even when they are underhanded, dumb, amoral, and/or violent.

I just find it amusing that anyone can post pics of themselves in revealing clothes and call themselves "models".

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

(Levin's) emphasis that the plaintiffs complaint is a big deal pretty much negated her conclusion.  He was right.

Damn. I missed this historic event.

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

I’ll miss this group but certainly not the show. 

Yeah. U ppl give me life. #sad 🙁

[Bazinga]

31 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

She's a young girl? I thought she looked about 30, but that's how much I was paying attention.

You are most likely right about her actual age but JM treated her like a young girl who needed her mothering protection.

[Blissfool]

 

On 7/5/2023 at 4:31 PM, AngelaHunter said:

P gets $200 or so for the busted door (def paid some I guess), but not her moving costs after the landlord declined to rent her another place in the building and wanted her out.  She called the police and the fire department that night to finish smashing the door down with a battering ram. I understand why the landlord thought "Uh uh!"

I disagreed with JM on this. The only reason landlord wouldn't re-rent to the P was because landlord was afraid of future problems arising from D's dangerous behavior. 

 

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

She's a young girl? I thought she looked about 30, but that's how much I was paying attention.

Same here. The only bright in the case was when defendant claimed that the photographer wanted to make pictures more sexual than she wanted to do. Connect that with the photographer telling her to cover up more of her ample boobage. I laughed at that, it reminded me of being in a strip club (decades ago) when customers started chanting "put it back on" instead of "take it off".

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

I laughed at that, it reminded me of being in a strip club (decades ago) when customers started chanting "put it back on" instead of "take it off".

🤣 Iced tea up nasal passage.  Still blowing my nose.  Was not expecting that.  But thank you for the laugh. 

The two lovebirds on today are making me mental. And disgusted. Pregnant at 14?  Two week relationship then he axes me to marry him. 

I need to blow my nose again.  Maybe for the next 50 minutes. 

DoctorK and AngelaHunter…you’re on. 

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I laughed at that, it reminded me of being in a strip club (decades ago) when customers started chanting "put it back on" instead of "take it off".

I heard the same thing many years ago when someone decided to hold a bridal shower in a male strip joint. Poor guy didn't measure up to expectations. I felt sorry for him.

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

Pregnant at 14?  Two week relationship then he axes me to marry him. 

"Impregnate her? He hardly knew 'er!" 

Sadly, Levin's vaudeville-era crap would be accurate for so many of our dear litigants. I recall one of them who seemed to have an epiphany. He announced in the hall: "Get to know someone before you have babies with them".  😏

Thanks for the preview. I'll watch with finger on FF button again.

[DoctorK]

First case today involved two foolish people who were friends in high school and got back together decades later and got engaged two weeks later. The only notable part was the defendant’s blatant bald faced lying and it was proved by her own evidence texts! I think she is the most shameless liar I have seen on any of the court shows (and we have seen many world class liars). She waffled all over her lies in the hallterview and Doug called her out on it, but he could have hit her a lot harder. What a lousy liar and despicable piece of trash.

I missed the second case due to breaking news that for once was actually important, useful and timely. Of course the station news guy had to get face time so after the real news conference he had to recap everything the real news said, thereby extending his five minutes of fame.

Edited July 7, 2023 by DoctorK

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

I think she is the most shameless liar I have seen on any of the court shows (and we have seen many world class liars).

Such an inveterate liar is she that I kind of think she doesn't even know she's lying. I think the biggest lie was her insisting she doesn't know nothing about pawn shops.

I couldn't deal with this. Not only the constant, "we was" and "they was" but when I heard the would-be blushing bride, sporting an exceptionally ugly synthetic wig, say she told her betrothed she wanted to save herself for marriage when he wanted some sex stuff (yeah, I just knew sex had to enter into this, as gruesome as that idea is in this case) I thought it's too bad that was not her attitude when she got knocked up at 14.

Actually, I think her no-neck, libidinous suitor who wanted to get his freak on dodged a bullet since no way was he getting any sweaty, huffy-puffy whoopees even after the nuptials. She just wanted to get married and didn't much care who the bridegroom was.

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

I missed the second case due to breaking news

You missed nothing. The dull-eyed, lamebrained door-lover case was excruciatingly boring. He paid a deposit and ordered a custom door but says he didn't really order it 3 years ago. The zoning for the property on which it was to be installed never came through so he wants his 1600$ back. No, of course, he has no proof he told Def door shop owner that he told him to hold off ordering it until his zoning was approved. Def wasn't much better since he sputters with silly excuses when asked why he doesn't write dates on his receipts. P  never called or inquired about the door in the last few years, but, COVID, but...he had stuff to do, blah blah.  Buzz off.

[Carolina Girl]

On 7/4/2023 at 1:28 PM, DoctorK said:

Then I think the defendant did manage to get the package (according to the Post Office documentation) and decided to just stiff the plaintiff and expected that the young and inexperienced plaintiff would just let it go.

I catch up with a week's worth of shows on Sunday.  In the case of the Croc Chisler, I think that POS defendant not only received the shoes, she got them that day when she claimed she "had" to leave the PO to pick up her kid from school.  She then made up the bullshit "family matters" to explain why she supposedly was unable to go back. 

I hope someone gets a photo of the daughter wearing the shoes and posts it.  

[AngelaHunter]

On 7/4/2023 at 5:32 PM, AngelaHunter said:

She is the winner of some sort of TPC lifetime achievement award. She is the absolute dumbest litigant/plaintiff/woman/human EVER seen on this show and that is saying a LOT.

I wrote this about a plaintiff the other day who sold her 60K Audi to some punk-ass kid.

Litigants just keep proving me dead wrong. Corrine Bradley, who got totally snowed in a 3 MILLION dollar deal, you rise to the top of the list. The best part was her smirking attitude to JM as if to insinuate that JM just didn't GET it.

She's suing the Def, a foolish, dopey, 33-year-old man-child loser with douchebag facial hair, and his ex-wife(?) who were in a dire financial situation for 5K for scamming her.

Corrine was trying to sell her parents' 600-acre farm for 3 million dollars. The man-child, along with P's "rillator" and her caretaker, viewed the property and was very enthusiastic about it. He was going to build a cabin and the farm purchase was to be in cash.  There was some sort of half-assed contract, not signed and no deposit was given.

Seems that the boy and his ex were preying on her Auntie, who is 71 and very ill with either dementia or Parkinson's, and who told them to go ahead and it didn't matter how much it cost.

Corrine gets a letter from Auntie's bank - a letter full of errors in grammar and punctuation that wouldn't fool a child. The rillator and the caretaker agree that it's legit, so Corrine buys it too. On the strength of that, Corrine gives the boot to the tenants who have lived there for 5 years, so now there is no monthly rent coming in and that's where her 5K suit comes in. 

I'm always interested in the people who fall for the most obvious scams. Corrine is one of them. Yes, she has that janky "bank" letter and saw nothing wrong with it.

JM is incensed at the Defs who were preying on this aunty as is the rest of the family who have cut off the boy and his erstwhile lady love.

I've had better and more official-looking documents from Nigerian scammers. Oh, but Corrine was sure it was real! She called this bank and it actually exists. That alone was good enough for her. She keeps that irritating smirk on even as JM is throwing them all out, because, in addition to all her other gross stupidities, Corrine is suing the wrong person.

The letter from the bank: 😄 Looks legit to me!

 

[DoctorK]

57 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

The letter from the bank: 😄 Looks legit to me!

That letter was pathetic. It wouldn't have flown even in a Wile E. Coyote cartoon. The defendants were awful people, manipulating a mentally unsound elder relative to swipe $3M (which we know they would piss away in a year and be totally broke-ass money-less again). I hope the Aunt's relatives are looking out for her, and I hope they will contact state social services to investigate elder abuse that I think the defendants clearly engaged in.

As an aside, the "ask the judges" segment after the first case was about suing politicians for lying (really?). They put the question text up on the screen with the phrase "slander, (something bad I don't remember) or liable". Shouldn't a court show know the difference between "libel" and "liable"? Or do they just not know how to use the notation [sic] in a quote?

Edited July 10, 2023 by DoctorK

[patty1h]

37 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Corrine was trying to sell her parents' 600-acre farm for 3 million dollars. The man-child, along with P's "rillator" and her caretaker, viewed the property and was very enthusiastic about it. He was going to build a cabin and the farm purchase was to be in cash.  There was some sort of half-assed contract, not signed and no deposit was given.

Corinne is just plain D-U-M-B but I also think she fell into the spell that folks who get into some romance scams and those Nigerian royalty emails.  They're sold that a windfall is coming soon and that seems to turn off the common sense area in their brain.  Corrine saw that letter with $34M on it and I picture her eyes bugging out like a cartoon character.   She don't need no stinking signatures on no stinking contract, she is going to ramble about the defendant owing her money until she runs out of breath.  

The defendants were plenty sketchy and I totally believe they were trying to take advantage of a sick old woman, hoping to get their grubby hands on whatever they could.   Seems like the family kicked them to the curb for being trifling, which they deserve. 

[AngelaHunter]

38 minutes ago, patty1h said:

Corrine saw that letter with $34M on it and I picture her eyes bugging out like a cartoon character. 

Corinne, for all her airs, might not be the most literate either. I know we see what we want to see, but would any reasonable, mature person believe that the letter came from a financial institution?

Or, yeah -  it could be she was just blinded by greed.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I wastched that case, and couldn't believe the plaintiff was that naive, and believed douche nozzle and his girlfriend or ex or whatever she was.   I love how the realtor who believed the ridiculous letter was fired by the agency, but I'm betting is still licensed, and helping to screw up other real estate transactions. 

That 'letter' from the credit union was such an obvious phony.    I hope that the co-owners of the property with plaintiff never let her have any further involvement with managing or selling the property.   I just feel sorry for the former tenants who had to move after five years because of the property sale scam. 

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 I just feel sorry for the former tenants who had to move after five years because of the property sale scam. 

The block-headed Corrine was jonesing on visions of 3 million in cash and kept insisting to JM that she did NOT tell them to leave. She merely told them to get ready to leave when the deal goes through.

 

16 hours ago, DoctorK said:

That letter was pathetic. It wouldn't have flown even in a Wile E. Coyote cartoon.

Was that an email? If so I wish we could have seen the "From" address.  I just betcha it wasn't the bank's email addy.  It's like the emails I get from Christopher A. Wray, director of the FBI, who apparently uses Gmail. When I questioned that I got this explanation:

Quote

"when you are not ok with the email account I used to contact then you should have told me to use the domain to contact you."

Ok, Chris. My mistake.

[Mrs Shibbles]

17 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Corinne, for all her airs, might not be the most literate either. I know we see what we want to see, but would any reasonable, mature person believe that the letter came from a financial institution?

Or, yeah -  it could be she was just blinded by greed.

My favorite part was when she asked the defendant “what were you thinking?” during the proceeding like the Judge just didn’t tell her how stupid she was.  Um, pot meet kettle!

[AngelaHunter]

Plans for P's 70th B-day party and a "trunk" party go awry when the party planner def - with such a towering pile on her head I'm sure she has to heed height limits when going under overpasses - says she contracted COVID and couldn't perform.

P, who assures JM she's filled with empathy says D also went on a whole "diatribe" about her husband who died. JM is a little annoyed at this, but P assures her it was no biggie, that Def had a very brief mourning period and snagged a new husband PDQ. He's sporting the same hairdo as his bride but it's only about 1/3rd the height.

Anyway, I was amazed that JM continued to believe what def told her after the evasive answers and outright lying she did right to JM's face. She was texting P from her hospital bed where she was confined and on oxygen and would let P know when she was released. She refutes that, saying she never said she was admitted to the hospital even though it's in black and white in texts. She babbles doubletalk and JM is okay with that.

P informs JM that she has 3 lawyers in the family, and seems proud that her daughter is so mouthy and aggressive. There was some stuff about P and/or her daughter "trashing" Def's son but we didn't get the details on that.

There was a hurricane and... whatever. I gave up.

[Mrs Shibbles]

I fast forwarded through the episode.  I caught the text that said the hurricane could be a 2,3,4, or 5 !

[Guest]

I also gave up. 

Lately I have been extra annoyed with stupid, scheming, arrogant bastards with chips on their shoulders. 

And lying. I despise liars on these court shows who not three seconds later will shout another lie and completely feign innocence when questioned about the previous lie.  And an extra annoyed shoutout to those who let the scheming lying contestants slide by (I’m looking at you JM). 

And hideous costuming that passes for fashion.  And bizarre makeup and tattoos that look like they were made in prison while the lights were out. 

So yes, the whole party planning/widow/bride-of-Frankenstein/new hubby/obscene daughters and confused litigants without a simple understanding of basic math case annoyed me so I shut it off. 

And somehow, someway a simple question about what the judges do on an airplane to pass the time had to wedge the Holy Trinity in the answer.  They are obnoxious with those three daughters.  Enough already.  

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

I despise liars on these court shows who not three seconds later will shout another lie and completely feign innocence when questioned about the previous lie.

No kidding. If I were caught in such bald-faced lies I think I might melt into the floor, but these bottom feeders seem to be so accustomed to telling outrageous fibs that are contradicted by their OWN TEXTS they are able to keep nattering on with more lies without even a pause.

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

 And an extra annoyed shoutout to those who let the scheming lying contestants slide by (I’m looking at you JM). 

She got JM's sympathy vote for the deceased hubby when - call me a hard-hearted cynic -  I got the feeling the Def has forgotten him already in the mad whirl of hunting up a new hubby, blocking P on her idiotic "social media", gluing on giant fake lashes/fake nails,  arranging "shimmer walls", (What?) 13K B-days parties one throws for oneself,  and building up that humongous tower on her head.

But I'm so glad she recovered so well from her bout with COVID even with her, as one litigant called it, "underlining condition".

[patty1h]

I hate myself for this, but I looked up shimmer wall.  It's basically a sheet of some shiny material used as a backdrop/feature wall/focal point at a party or celebration.  Looks like it's usually decorated with balloons or banners.

[Bookworm13]

Can anyone remind me when the final ep of TPC is supposed to air? I looked, but couldn’t find anything. 
 

These hour-long nothing cases are getting tedious to watch, although it explains why there have been times in the past where it seemed JM lost her cool at times that seemed unfounded. I’d be losing it much more quickly if I had to listen to this nonsense all day long too. And I appreciate how much the editors cut out and were still left with cohesive cases, even when showing 3/day. These litigants have seemed dumber than typical TPC litigants, so it’s hard to find anything worthwhile to say. It was nice seeing Hall Douglas in the same frame as one of the litigants last week. As much as I hope he shows up on the new show, he’s probably tired of dealing with people at this point. 

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, Bookworm13 said:

These hour-long nothing cases are getting tedious to watch

There were actually two cases today, but they just ran into each other with trifling, stupid litigants yammering about a 5-hr, 900$ hair job and hair hair HAIR, and CashApp 40$ and it takes a week to get the other 10$ and a grill like a broken picket fence, and Bozo topknot, and who gives a rat's ass?

I didn't pay attention in the first case. I was too busy trying to figure out what cartoon or sci-fi character the def. reminded me of, with the immense 'do and the ring in the nose.

Stuff and nonsense.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I didn't pay attention in the first case. I was too busy trying to figure out what cartoon or sci-fi character the def. reminded me of, with the immense 'do and the ring in the nose.

Stuff and nonsense.

All that kept running through my mind while gazing at the defendant was Beach Blanket Bingo! and Annette Funnicelo with the high hair.  Sans nose ring because Annette would never touch her nose.  
 

I too gave up on the weave case  $900 for plastic hair?  Hate to tell the plaintiff but if you looked around a bit you’d find a better looking substitute for a lot less money.

Voila!!!!

[DoctorK]

Okay, another day, more unlikeable litigants. First case was about a young girl and a cheerleading club or school or something. Defendant (cheerleading organization owner) was sort of scatter brained and not at all good at doing business. However, I hated the plaintiff mother with all of her terrible presentation of her complaints. More striking to me was the way the plaintiff hurt her daughter by yanking her out of the cheerleading (which the daughter really liked) because of her spat with the defendant, over a few hundred bucks. As JM pointed out to the plaintiff (who paid no attention at all) that the right thing for her daughter would have been to let daughter finish the cheerleading season and just find her another organization for the following year. Plaintiff got most of her money back (correctly by law even if I didn’t like it) because of the defendant’s lack of  business knowledge and skill.

The second case was about dog grooming and a bounced check. Plaintiff does a mobile dog grooming service and groomed two dogs for the Defendant. The defendant was a piece of work, loud, entitled, and completely unable to keep her story straight. She testified that she saw her dog had a problem in its ear after the grooming on the same day, then she changed to the next day, but her complaint said that it was a week later. From her description it sounds like the dog had excess wax build up in the ear (it this something groomers take care of or is it a vet job?) or ear mites which she never took to a vet to check out. Incidentally, the plaintiff’s head to toe (including purse) intense black and white checkered costume gave me a headache. Defendant’s story about the payments she made wandered all over the landscape, even at one point claiming that she sent $100 through a cash app but it turns out that she sent it to the wrong app (if she actually did send anything) but got it returned. Her son was just as bad a witness as his mother. Plaintiff got the money he was owed including the $12 bounced check fee (boy did the defendant hate that). The defendant continued to make a fool of herself in the hallterview.

[seacliffsal]

Regarding the case of the cheerleading dropout, I thought the defendant said that the plaintiff had only paid $200 of the $900 fee, so the plaintiff received more money in the judgement than she paid out.  I think JM had a hard time listening to this case as it brought up too many memories of her daughters.  JM even went in on an incoherent story about how many volleyball games/trips/etc. she had done for her daughters.  So, I think she forgot that the plaintiff did not even pay the initial fee.  The defendant has no business running a business as she was totally scattered and didn't even have copies of the contracts or signed waivers.  She's lucky she is still in business.  

Too many black and white checks in the second case.  Even the defendant's husband was head to toe in the checks.  Houndstooth?  Don't scam your groomer-it can be a fairly small community and word will get around.  Oh, and I had never heard of a checking account in which one can only write 7 checks a month.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, seacliffsal said:

Too many black and white checks in the second case.  Even the defendant's husband was head to toe in the checks.  Houndstooth?  

[DoctorK]

37 minutes ago, seacliffsal said:

I had never heard of a checking account in which one can only write 7 checks a month.

Actually, I have but it was back in the early 1960's when I was 12 or 13 years old. I was doing lots of hobby electronics using mail order suppliers. My mother got tired of writing checks for me so she took me to the bank and opened a checking account in my name (of course she had to sign for it) so I could write and sign my own checks. I don't recall the details but there was a limit on the number of checks I could write each month. I learned how to balance my own check book and watch my balance, sort of a head start on adult life. I am pretty sure that monthly limits went away decades ago.

[AngelaHunter]

55 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

The second case was about dog grooming and a bounced check.

I missed the first case because of a massive storm that knocked out the power. I tuned in at the beginning of the second and heard the Former Hall Clown say about the def, "No one tells HER when to pay for anything", saw the eyelashes, checks (which hurt my eyes too after only 3 seconds) and pics of doggies and decided to skip the whole thing.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I missed the first case because of a massive storm that knocked out the power. I tuned in at the beginning of the second and heard the Former Hall Clown say about the def, "No one tells HER when to pay for anything", saw the eyelashes, checks (which hurt my eyes too after only 3 seconds) and pics of doggies and decided to skip the whole thing.

Well you missed another shoehorn the Holy Trinity into a case example.  In addition to being Social Justice Warriers, stunningly beautiful women, close friends with each other, witty, humorous, loving and thoughtful they're also exceptional athletes.  

It would be interesting to talk to the other families in the close-as-you-please cul-de-sac where they live.  I'd bet a few plastic hair extensions and a teardrop tattoo  that they have some interesting comments about the dear family and especially the Holy Trinity.  I wouldn't be one bit surprised to hear a neighbor comment that on more than one occasion they heard JM rip John to shreds.  

[AngelaHunter]

47 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

 In addition to being Social Justice Warriers, stunningly beautiful women, close friends with each other, witty, humorous, loving and thoughtful they're also exceptional athletes.  

You forgot that they sing in perfect harmony, like the little angels they are!

47 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

I wouldn't be one bit surprised to hear a neighbor comment that on more than one occasion they heard JM rip John to shreds.  

😆 I think we've seen her come close to ripping him a new one during a few of their tête-à-têtes when recalling something he'd done to piss her off, or when he threatened to reveal something about her no one knew.

[Bazinga]

Harvey's commentary post case one was ridiculous.  Does he even listen to the case or just go off of a synopsis or something, as he is wrong and makes no sense? 

Harvey: "So, uh, Doug, look, this is a situation where the plaintiff is trying to impose a condition in a contract where the condition was really never there, namely volunteering to do this kind of work outside of the cheerleading practices.  So, um, the bottomline here is the mother is right; the mother should get her money back because volunteering was not part of the deal." 

First sentence, he transposes the plaintiff with the defendant.  He should be saying that the defendant is trying to require volunteering that was not in the contract, not that the plaintiff did this, as it does not work with his follow up sentence.  Harvey's point is untrue, as volunteering was required.  From the testimony, the plaintiff mother's issue with the volunteering was that this rule was selectively enforced not that it was added to the contract.  So Harvey was wrong twice in his first sentence.  Then, second sentence, Harvey explains that the ruling in the case was for the mother because of the volunteering issue, which, though discussed, was not a factor in JM's ruling.  JM ruled for the plaintiff because defendant gave back $150 to other parents but not the plaintiff, as the defendant felt the plaintiff was already receiving a discount.  JM felt defendant's action broke the contract thus entitling the plaintiff to a refund where she would not ordinarily have received such a refund.  The ruling had absolutely nothing to do with the volunteering issue as Harvey was trying to portray. 

In two sentences, Harvey was wrong three times and his reasoning was not in line with the actual ruling in the case. 

My opinion: giving the $150 refund was not part of the original contract, so failing to give the refund does not break the contract entitling the plaintiff to a full refund as JM ruled.  The plaintiff should have gotten the same refund others got but the contract should have remained intact with the plaintiff only getting the $150 back.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Bazinga

[CrazyInAlabama]

I've noticed Harvey seems unable to realize that California law isn't the same in other states.   Especially in fence and tree cases.   I doubt he ever dealt with anything about residential cases, and only thinks it's the same everywhere, and it isn't.   

Where I used to live, a joint fence line could be agreed on, with each side paying for half, and often have the good side alternating (Colorado).   

However, in my current state, if you put a fence slightly inside your property line, then the neighbor doesn't have to pay half, and can't fasten a fence to your fence.   You also can't put up a fence on the property line and force the other neighbor to pay anything.   

California law is different (yes, I actually pay attention to the cases on Judge Judy and TPC), where state law is that one neighbor can put up a joint fence, and the other homeowner has to pay.     That wouldn't work in Alabama. 

 

I noticed the Judges' discussion yesterday was very heated, and not the usual banter with some disagreement, they looked really ticked at each other. 

Edited July 14, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[patty1h]

I was sorta interested in the "Terrible Tenant" case today and suddenly the screen says "Breaking News".  I braced myself for what could possibly be happening here in NYC... oh, they finally caught some serial killer from 13 years ago. Yippee, but they didn't need to cut into TPC five minutes into the episode for this news and then pre-empt the rest of the hour.  Dang.

Lucky for me that the posters here give great recaps.

Edited July 14, 2023 by patty1h
The crimes weren't in the 90's, as I thought

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

oh, they finally caught some serial killer from 13 years ago. Yippee, but they didn't need to cut into TPC five minutes into the episode for this news

I so sympathize. I still recall missing weeks of my shows for non-news of the violent, sadistic, well-endowed escaped murderer, who prison officials insisted on referring to as "this gentleman".

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

I was sorta interested in the "Terrible Tenant" case today

I watched it all. P was a renter who lived there for eight years, was the ideal tenant, was quiet, kept the place neat and tidy, and gave proper notice to move yet was not refunded his sec. dep. because the 8-year-old carpet was left a mess.

He told a clear, linear story, spoke proper English, and was well-mannered. I was entranced by this rarity.

Def and his wife, who were friends with P for 20 years refused to return his deposit AND are countersuing, thinking he needs to pay them 5K because they had to change all the windows on this ancient dwelling and declare that it's all P's fault for having window a/cs which "messed up" the windows which could not be closed after the units were removed.  BTW, two of the units belonged to the Def landlords, I believe. P says he removed them when winter came and had no problem closing the windows.

Apropos of nothing really, Def hubby starts digging dirt on P, telling JM how P lost his job, was being kicked out of his former apartment, was desperate for housing and the benevolent Ds took him in,  etc.

P says it took Defs 9 months to fix a leak he reported to them. Def's wife says it wasn't nearly that long although she can't say how long it was.  Sorry, Ms. Mouthy, but even 9 DAYS would be too long!

Defs want P to pay to gussy up the dwelling for a new tenant. JM, of course, doesn't allow that and orders P's $750 deposit returned.

The next case is a Type A bigmouth who didn't get his new a/c the minute he wanted it. He's been dealing with the Def's a/c company for over 10 years. P calls him on a Friday to install a new a/c compressor ("Compressor? HE HARDLY KNEW 'ER!") and def says he's going on holiday but his employees will do the job on Monday as soon as the new unit comes in.

Monday comes and at 9 a.m. P's wife calls the company and talks to someone named Juan to make sure they're on the list to get the a/c. Ps have the recording of the call which JM plays, and I don't know why they thought it would help them.

Juan says they are on the list, but that the unit they ordered is not at their place of business yet then gets cut off or hangs up. Wife calls back and some incredibly rude person screams "WHAT DO YOU WANT"?.  Then hubby, in an impotent rage calls at noon and starts cursing with F-bombs at Juan, saying he's recording the conversation, he's not putting up with this and wants his "refund back" (his deposit, I assume), and blah blah. Juan takes exception to talking with someone who is cursing at him.

Plaintiff is a total meathead jerk with an anger issue. Who thinks they can order a/c in the middle of a heat wave and get instant service?

Unfortunately, I had to stop there so don't know what the judgment was.