The People's Court - General Discussion

[Shrek]

On 7/13/2023 at 1:31 PM, PsychoKlown said:

I think she must have seen this picture & said "if you think that's a lot hold my beer". She had the hat & huge earrings to match as well as her son looking like he was kidnapped by the same fashion house and both looked absolutely ridiculous.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Shrek said:

I think she must have seen this picture & said "if you think that's a lot hold my beer". She had the hat & huge earrings to match as well as her son looking like he was kidnapped by the same fashion house and both looked absolutely ridiculous.

Ha!  The old houndstooth pattern.  Not for every body that’s for sure 

Son?  I thought it was her new bed companion.  She was a grieving widder for a few days then had to move on. 

Then again I could be wrong.  That was one of those cases that I tuned out after  a few minutes. 
 

[Shrek]

6 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Ha!  The old houndstooth pattern.  Not for every body that’s for sure 

Son?  I thought it was her new bed companion.  She was a grieving widder for a few days then had to move on. 

Then again I could be wrong.  That was one of those cases that I tuned out after  a few minutes. 
 

I thought it was her son but I may have been blinded & lost some hearing after seeing them both. Whatever he was he also looked ridiculous.

[DoctorK]

21 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Son?  I thought it was her new bed companion.

I am pretty sure it was her son. At least his checks were fairly small, even though it looked like he was wearing pajamas.

[seacliffsal]

Well, the judgement in the hot head plaintiff case was that the defendant had to refund $125.  The defendant already refunded the deposit (of over $2,000 even though the plaintiff canceled the order) but kept $250 for the initial visit to determine what was wrong with the AC.  JM asked how much he usually charged for a call and he said $125 but that the other $125 was for the time as he sent his employees to personally pick up the compressor rather than wait for the delivery.  JM said he couldn't charge for that time so he could only keep $125, so $125 to plaintiff.  To add salt to the wound, she told the defendant that if he had kept the entire $2000 deposit she would have let him keep it as it was the plaintiff who, for no reason, canceled the deal.  But, because he returned the deposit, he had to return all of it except for the initial house call.  

I could not stand this plaintiff.  How his wife has stayed with him is beyond my comprehension.  The fact that he thought his profanity laden rant would help his case was mind-boggling.  Plus, when his wife tried to calm him down on the recording we clearly heard him tell her to shut-up.  I wish JM made the plaintiff give back the refunded deposit to the defendant.  

Well, the judgement in the hot head plaintiff case was that the defendant had to refund $125.  The defendant already refunded the deposit (of over $2,000 even though the plaintiff canceled the order) but kept $250 for the initial visit to determine what was wrong with the AC.  JM asked how much he usually charged for a call and he said $125 but that the other $125 was for the time as he sent his employees to personally pick up the compressor rather than wait for the delivery.  JM said he couldn't charge for that time so he could only keep $125, so $125 to plaintiff.  To add salt to the wound, she told the defendant that if he had kept the entire $2000 deposit she would have let him keep it as it was the plaintiff who, for no reason, canceled the deal.  But, because he returned the deposit, he had to return all of it except for the initial house call.  

I could not stand this plaintiff.  How his wife has stayed with him is beyond my comprehension.  The fact that he thought his profanity laden rant would help his case was mind-boggling.  Plus, when his wife tried to calm him down on the recording we clearly heard him tell her to shut-up.  I wish JM made the plaintiff give back the refunded deposit to the defendant.  

Well, the judgement in the hot head plaintiff case was that the defendant had to refund $125.  The defendant already refunded the deposit (of over $2,000 even though the plaintiff canceled the order) but kept $250 for the initial visit to determine what was wrong with the AC.  JM asked how much he usually charged for a call and he said $125 but that the other $125 was for the time as he sent his employees to personally pick up the compressor rather than wait for the delivery.  JM said he couldn't charge for that time so he could only keep $125, so $125 to plaintiff.  To add salt to the wound, she told the defendant that if he had kept the entire $2000 deposit she would have let him keep it as it was the plaintiff who, for no reason, canceled the deal.  But, because he returned the deposit, he had to return all of it except for the initial house call.  

I could not stand this plaintiff.  How his wife has stayed with him is beyond my comprehension.  The fact that he thought his profanity laden rant would help his case was mind-boggling.  Plus, when his wife tried to calm him down on the recording we clearly heard him tell her to shut-up.  I wish JM made the plaintiff give back the refunded deposit to the defendant.  

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

I am pretty sure it was her son. At least his checks were fairly small, even though it looked like he was wearing pajamas.

See I thought it was her husband because JM mentioned an affidavit from the son. The guy next to her seemed real long in the tooth and mentioned something about coming home and yelling at the groomer. 

Oh well, not the first time I got things wrong.  Nor the last. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

Charging for time to get to a job, or trips to get supplies are usually paid by customer.   The $125 to plaintiff was ridiculous.   

[AngelaHunter]

21 hours ago, seacliffsal said:

To add salt to the wound, she told the defendant that if he had kept the entire $2000 deposit she would have let him keep it as it was the plaintiff who, for no reason, canceled the deal. 

I finally saw the end of this. It's in the "No good deed..." category.

21 hours ago, seacliffsal said:

I could not stand this plaintiff.  How his wife has stayed with him is beyond my comprehension.  The fact that he thought his profanity laden rant would help his case was mind-boggling.

I know! While JM was listening to it, the jerk stands there nodding as though she would find something admirable about it. I bet he only speaks that way to people he feels are not in a position to retaliate, like young employees and his "Shut up" wife.

 

20 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

See I thought it was her husband because JM mentioned an affidavit from the son.

I thought it was her new husband too, since for the brief period I watched, P said D's hubby died but it's fine since she already has a new one and seemed to cast a glance in the direction of Def's companion.

[DoctorK]

22 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

See I thought it was her husband because JM mentioned an affidavit from the son.

After reading more posts, I think I was wrong about this in my post. I blame it on the glaring black and white checkered patterns I still see whenever I look at a white wall.

[AngelaHunter]

On 7/16/2023 at 12:19 PM, DoctorK said:

After reading more posts, I think I was wrong about this in my post. I blame it on the glaring black and white checkered patterns I still see whenever I look at a white wall.

Totally understandable. I often get so dazed and confused by the wild riot of tats, massive lashes, revealed underwear, wrecked grills, sparkly/sheer clothing, and glued-on, terrifying finger daggers I completely lose the facts of the cases.

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Totally understandable. I often get so dazed and confused by the wild riot of tats, massive lashes, revealed underwear, wrecked grills, sparkly/sheer clothing, and glued-on, terrifying finger daggers I completely lose the facts of the cases.

Well hang onto your plastic extensions for case one.  A wedding case. 

Let’s just all agree that PsychoKlown is ancient.  For some stupid reason I have the notion that church weddings are sacred and one should respect the building and people inside. And while weddings are a joyous occasion… there’s not a reason in the world they can’t be both joyful and respectful. 

My husband did not beep-bop down the church aisle.  If he had, he wouldn’t be identified today as my husband. 

As I said.  Ancient. 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

 For some stupid reason I have the notion that church weddings are sacred and one should respect the building and people inside.

So -no Badio maids, hierarchical trappings, or Dirty Dancing in the aisle, then?

How staid.

[DoctorK]

I was bored by the first case, another one about wedding pictures and plaintiffs who want to get their pictures for free by complaining about the quality of proofs from the photographer.

Second case was only notable (as far as I am concerned) due to the defendant’s eyelashes. I think they were the biggest I have seen on the show. I can’t understand how these eyelash people can look in a mirror and think this looks good. I think it looks trashy and ugly. I liked watching the defendant on camera with her step-father (?) next to her. She was either nodding off the whole time the guy was talking or the eyelashes were really too heavy for her to keep her eyes open.

Edited July 17, 2023 by DoctorK

[CrazyInAlabama]

The ridiculous part of the first case about wedding photos is that the plaintiffs lied about what pictures they received, and also they had a 'background photographer' who was a friend of bride's late brother.   How did the second photographer add to anything?  I bet since second photographer was free, and plaintiffs had defendant's excellent video, that the plaintiffs are another set of cheapskates who wanted free photography.     I'm so glad the plaintiffs lost. 

The eyelashes on the defendant in the second case are hideous. Bet defendant couldn't even see because of the eyelashes when she hit the plaintiff's car.  As always, defendant had no insurance.   

[AngelaHunter]

19 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I bet since second photographer was free, and plaintiffs had defendant's excellent video, that the plaintiffs are another set of cheapskates who wanted free photography. 

My thoughts exactly. "Hey baby, since we got all those free pictures, why should we pay the photographer? Let's stiff him. We'll say the pics were one day late, so we deserve all our money back."

Despicable.

Those pictures... oh, my. The groom, sporting the shiniest head I've ever seen, starts to boogaloo down the aisle and I was fearful he might crash to the floor or that his ill-fitting costume might split at the seams.

Then here comes the bride, looking utterly enchanting with her strapless, sleeveless gown, so low-cut that her enormous, hanging bazooms were one step away from flopping out, and with an artistic, sprawling array of muddy, scribbled tats above them. 

And those scammers said the pics were no good? Considering the subject material I thought they were excellent. Not to mention that the groom's "godmother" (am I the only person with no godmother?) gave the photographer the wrong address!

2nd: JM says she never heard the name "Miracle" before. I guess she doesn't watch JJ, or she would have heard it multiple times. Miracle likes to drive with no insurance since insurance costs too much. I wouldn't be surprised if she's had previous accidents since those lashes seem heavy enough to impair her vision.

The P has the gall to park in front of D's driveway, so of course Miracle hit her. Except P is parked in front of her OWN house, across the street. The street is so very narrow that when the uninsured Miracle backs out of her driveway, she can't help but crash into P's car. It must be P's fault. Gargoyle stepdaddy says he was going to pay something for P's damage, "but...he didn't". 😏

P brings only one estimate for the damage plus some figures she got online for a car rental, even though she has no idea how long her car will be in the shop for repair. JM dismisses that and awards her 2500$.

[Guest]

With this eyelashes it was a miracle no one was killed. 

And gargoyle step-daddy must not only read but follow AngelaHunter He was gonna pay…but didn’t. 

And truth be told I was gunna have my bridesmaids wiggle down the church aisle…but didn’t. I didn’t want them to take away the limelight away from me.  I planned to wear a see-through wedding dress but alas…didn’t. 💍🎂🤡

 

[AngelaHunter]

Oh, I forgot! The judges are asked, (Paraphrasing) "In the unthinkable scenario that one of your beautiful, talented, perfect, etc etc., daughters did something naughty would you use your positions as judges to get them off the hook"?

An absurd question, of course. As if the angels would do anything not perfect.

Well, JM says she would not, if it would bring shame to her and/or hers.

John pipes up with "Those days are gone" meaning the days when judges and cops/lawyers were in collusion and a phone call could get some miscreant set free.

I guess that has come about since John used his influence to let his drunken friend skate with no penalties for drunk driving.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

 I planned to wear a see-through wedding dress but alas…didn’t.

Always remember the words of wedding planner Anthony in "Sex and the City":

"No one wants to see the bride's beaver".

😆🤣

[DoctorK]

25 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

"No one wants to see the bride's beaver".

Hmmm, I have gone to a lot of friends' weddings, and there may have been a couple where I might ...... never mind.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Always remember the words of wedding planner Anthony in "Sex and the City":

"No one wants to see the bride's beaver".

😆🤣

He’ll, I don’t want to see this brides beaver.  And if I keep binging on chocolate graham crackers - the point will be moot. 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

And if I keep binging on chocolate graham crackers - the point will be moot.

A friend gave me some blueberry streusel coffee cake that is to die for. I'm eating it in one tiny slice per day. Yes, I DO think I think it has fewer calories if eaten that way.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Plaintiff owns a coop, rented to defendant, husband and 16-year-old daughter.   Plaintiff had multiple complaints from neighbors about 16-year-old running around outside half naked, fights with 16-year-old, violent fights, police calls.   Daughter moves out, then comes back, and meanwhile, plaintiff said she's not renewing the lease, and defendant woman gives a move out date.  

Plaintiff has a week to find another tenant, defendant says she'll allow showings.  However, plaintiff tries to show apartment, and it's trashed.   When plaintiff tries to show a prospective tenant with a little kid with them, the daughter starts screaming filth at the plaintiff and tenant.  Big shock (sarcasm) prospective tenant nopes out on renting the place. 

Defendants already gave up on claiming for security deposit back. 

For once, Judge M doesn't call everything 'normal wear and tear'.  However, plaintiff wants to put wooden floors in, for $4,000.  HOwever, plaintiff used LVP on the floor, which I bet was half the price, installed. 

  Front door is destroyed, another door is destroyed, carpet is destroyed, a window is smashed to pieces.  One section of carpet has black spray paint, because daughter sprayed a dresser black, on the carpet.     What kind of fool spray paints a dresser on the carpet?   The smell of the spray paint is toxic in a confined space.   

Judge M claims the weed odor through out the condo will go away, no it won't.  I would have given the plaintiff $5,000, just for dealing with the do-nothing tenants and their destructive, violent daughter.  Plaintiff put in LVP flooring.   

I hope the current landlord of the defendants, and daughter saw this case.  

Plaintiff keeps the security deposit, and gets $470.   In my view, a total miscarriage of justice by Judge M. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[Guest]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff owns a coop, rented to defendant, husband and 16-year-old daughter.   Plaintiff had multiple complaints from neighbors about 16-year-old running around outside half naked, fights with 16-year-old, violent fights, police calls.   Daughter moves out, then comes back, and meanwhile, plaintiff said she's not renewing the lease, and defendant woman gives a move out date.  

Plaintiff has a week to find another tenant, defendant says she'll allow showings.  However, plaintiff tries to show apartment, and it's trashed.   When plaintiff tries to show a prospective tenant with a little kid with them, the daughter starts screaming filth at the plaintiff and tenant.  Big shock (sarcasm) prospective tenant nopes out on renting the place. 

Defendants already gave up on claiming for security deposit back. 

For once, Judge M doesn't call everything 'normal wear and tear'.  However, plaintiff wants to put wooden floors in, for $4,000.   Front door is destroyed, another door is destroyed, carpet is destroyed, a window is smashed to pieces.  One section of carpet has black spray paint, because daughter sprayed a dresser black, on the carpet.     Judge M claims the weed odor through out the condo will go away, no it won't.  I would have given the plaintiff $5,000, just for dealing with the do-nothing tenants and their destructive, violent daughter.  Plaintiff put in LVP flooring.   

Plaintiff keeps the security deposit, and gets $470.   In my view, a total miscarriage of justice by Judge M. 

JM has been chapping my fanny with these bogus decisions. That apartment was beyond filthy and that couple was a few sandwiches short of a picnic.  

While I agree the plaintiffs should have shored up their evidence better and perhaps requesting the full 4k for new wooden floors was excessive it is in fact going to cost some bucks for carpet.  The way JM acted the plaintiffs could get a houseful of carpet for $45. 

She’s annoying me much more lately.  Instead of just being herself she’s developing a haughty attitude all the while screeching at the contestants like an old fishwife. 

Why am I still watching this?
 

 

[seacliffsal]

JM really got me when she told the plaintiff that 'everyone knows that the weed smell leaves.'  Why would everyone know that?  And, smoke of any kind settles in fabrics and walls.  Is it that her beautiful golden angel daughters smoke a lot of weed and JM sees herself as an expert now?  Cat urine (which JM mentioned) is horrible, but smoke does stay.  And, the defendant can miss me with her 'wear and tear.'  It seems like a lot of tenants think 'wear and tear' means they can wear everything out and tear everything up and it's covered by their rent.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

 Instead of just being herself she’s developing a haughty attitude all the while screeching at the contestants like an old fishwife. 

Ah, I recall posters complaining about how crabby Judge Judy is and saying how much nicer is JM. I replied they need to give her time. Years of dealing with the dregs of society would turn anyone into a screeching virago. 😄

That couple - the worn-out mom and her little submissive beta boy? I actually felt kind of sorry for them dealing with what seems to be a violent Hulk of a daughter. I'm really surprised someone else agreed to rent to them, but maybe the new landlord didn't know about the chaos and destruction.

Movers who jammed the giant fridge through the doorway, denting and scratching it all to hell: We have no idea of the terms of any contract since the mover def has no time for such trivialities as contracts. He can't be that busy, since he was able to take this job with a single day's notice.  I guess they all felt a kinship and trusted each other and that worked out as per usual.

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Why am I still watching this?

Because you

- love us?
- desperately need The Levin's DWOW?

- feel your own life is just peachy-keen after hearing about the train wrecks of others?

- enjoy keeping up with fashion, cosmetics, and the latest influencers?

- like hearing about the Adventures of the Three Wonders Kids?

Okay, those are MY reasons. I don't know yours. 😏

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Because you

- love us?
- desperately need The Levin's DWOW?

- feel your own life is just peachy-keen after hearing about the train wrecks of others?

- enjoy keeping up with fashion, cosmetics, and the latest influencers?

- like hearing about the Adventures of the Three Wonders Kids?

Okay, those are MY reasons. I don't know yours. 😏

 

Hell.  All of the above. 🤐

[DoctorK]

First case was another dog injured by another dog case. The plaintiff was a liar from the very beginning but when JM walked down to pet the plaintiff’s dog I was expecting her to go all mushy over the poor little injured dog. The defendant’s witness (and sister) was a lousy witness but I don’t think she was lying, just did a poor job of presenting her evidence. The outcome was OK, the defendant had already paid more than half of the amount the plaintiff wanted so JM ended it all as already paid so nothing more for the plaintiff. Plaintiff continued to make an ass of herself in the hallterview, she was angry that she didn’t get the BONANZA she deserved.

The second case was sort of gripping, in the same way that a car crash can be. Neither of the litigants seems to be able to answer questions with anything resembling logic or coherence. The plaintiff is a pathetic clown, wearing his most formal go-to-court hoodie, and with drooping eyelids which I suspect was because he was high as a kite and nodding off. He kept talking out of turn in spite of several warnings from JM, but he kept doing it to the point that JM chewed him out royally, telling him that the way he was behaving in a court wasn’t helping his case (not that he listened or understood what JM was saying). The defendant plaintiff kept running his mouth even while JM is giving her verdict. I am not even mentioning him giving the defendant a black eye, although I think the defendant could have beat the crap out of the plaintiff if she decided to. Hallterviews – defendant came across pretty well, the plaintiff (not surprisingly) flew the coop without a hallterview, not surprising from a pathetic punk-ass woman beater.

P.S. Asking the judges what they would buy with a billion dollars was sort of dumb but after JM wanted a private jet then JJ said he wanted the full 64 color (with sharpener) crayon box that he never got as a kid, I laughed at that (and I can remember only having the 8 or 12(?) color box as a kid.

Edited July 19, 2023 by DoctorK
corrected from "defendant" to "plaintiff"

[patty1h]

51 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

The plaintiff is a pathetic clown, wearing his most formal go-to-court hoodie, and with drooping eyelids which I suspect was because he was high as a kite and nodding off.

My first thought when seeing this little creep was that he had a very bad case of "male resting bitch face", but I like your take.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

First case was another dog injured by another dog case.

I admit when I heard "dog" I zoned out and started skipping. I stopped in time to learn that P likes to walk her mini-dog in the city with no leash. Def paid half of the 5400$ vet bill after one of her, or her sister's dogs bit the little one, yet that was not enough for greedy P. The Defs, in what little I saw of them, seem like kooks, yet they took some responsibility when P took zero. And yeah, in the hall we hear P still thinks letting her tiny dog run loose on the street is not her problem.

She was getting out of a car! She was going to put a leash on the poor little thing but... "she didn't".  Don't good intentions count for anything anymore?

The next one - hoo boy! Tiny ex-lovah boy, Leon, suing his large, hefty former squeeze, Crystalann, for the junk of his that she threw away.

Def is a SSM who lives with her Grammy. I feel bad for all these Grandmas stuck taking in grandchildren and all their carelessly spawned babies. No idea if the kidlets are the issue of the sawed-off Leon. Maybe or maybe not, since Leon says they was datin' for 4 years. Crystalann called the cops on the feisty little Leon SIX TIMES but not once did she show up for the hearings. It's all the fault of the court system since no one there bothered to inform her of the dates of all these hearings. JM gets snarky about that lying crap.

Leon implies that she deserved the black eye (which he gave her in front of the kids and Grammy! As if that's the only violence they've witnessed) and other domestic violence the little guy perpetrated on her since she "has a dirty mouf" and "disrespected" him. I agree he's quite deserving of respect.

Personally, I'm with DoctorK and think Def could have pounded wee Leon into the pavement had she a mind to do so.

Leon is quite snippy with JM, rolling his eyes (as much as he could since his eyes were mere slits) and sassing her:

"Can you listen to me??" and "You're still not gettin' me!"

JM assures him that she "gets" him very well.

Douglas smirks at the idiocy emerging from Little Leon's flapping piehole. I must note that Byrd would have sauntered over and opened a can of verbal whoop-ass on the little shit.

Anyway, he wants over 4K for the junk he left at Gramma's, like Ugg socks (Crystalann is wearing the Ugg socks), underwear, iPad, gaming stuff, etc. Oh, and a betrothal ring from Zale's he bought for his intended. I have a feeling Crystalann pawned a lot of this stuff.  He gets 130$ for a loan his former ladylove admits he made to her, period. So affronted is Leon at this new disrespect he scuttles out, refusing to chat with Doug-in-the-Hall.

[Bazinga]

I don't want to overanalyze this case, but was there a reason the plaintiff got awarded for one of the IPads and not any of his other stuff, including the Playstation?  Defendant admitted to the loan and then JM gave the relatively minuscule amount for one IPad (I think $59).  JM seemed to enjoy giving Leon a small award.  But, why was the Ipad any different then the other items the defendant was right to get rid of?  Why was he compensated for that one item?  He also had no proof of the Ipad's original cost and its depreciated value.  JM just took his word as to what it cost.  Why does that happen sometimes?  Just because an amount is relatively small, does not mean plaintiff should just be allowed to recover and just because the value is small, doesn't mean he should recover the initial cost of the item and not the depreciated value, as seemed to happen here.  JM comes off so arbitrary sometimes.

Edited July 20, 2023 by Bazinga

[Shrek]

5 hours ago, Bazinga said:

I don't want to overanalyze this case, but was there a reason the plaintiff got awarded for one of the IPads and not any of his other stuff, including the Playstation?  Defendant admitted to the loan and then JM gave the relatively minuscule amount for one IPad (I think $59).  JM seemed to enjoy giving Leon a small award.  But, why was the Ipad any different then the other items the defendant was right to get rid of?  Why was he compensated for that one item?  He also had no proof of the Ipad's original cost and its depreciated value.  JM just took his word as to what it cost.  Why does that happen sometimes?  Just because an amount is relatively small, does not mean plaintiff should just be allowed to recover and just because the value is small, doesn't mean he should recover the initial cost of the item and not the depreciated value, as seemed to happen here.  JM comes off so arbitrary sometimes.

I thought it was because the def admitted that she was supposed to pay the instalments for the one ipad and didn't pay anything. The fact he only wanted $130 for the cost of 2 ipads shows he was an idiot.

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, Bazinga said:

I don't want to overanalyze this case, but was there a reason the plaintiff got awarded for one of the IPads and not any of his other stuff, including the Playstation?

I only watched bits and pieces, but no idea. I do recall being shocked at JM awarding some other character a lot of money for stuff he said was lost to theft(?) without a shred of proof or a single receipt. I must try to find the posts here.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I only watched bits and pieces, but no idea. I do recall being shocked at JM awarding some other character a lot of money for stuff he said was lost to theft(?) without a shred of proof or a single receipt. I must try to find the posts here.

Was that the case where the contestant claimed they had a trunk full of uncut diamonds* in the car when they left it there for service?

*Uncut diamonds or a PlayStation.  Six of one…half a dozen of the other since the contestant was a fat liar. 

[AngelaHunter]

26 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Was that the case where the contestant claimed they had a trunk full of uncut diamonds* in the car when they left it there for service?

*Uncut diamonds or a PlayStation.  Six of one…half a dozen of the other since the contestant was a fat liar. 

That was one. There was also the guy who claimed 1900$ for jewelry he left in some pockets of clothes he took to the cleaner. The cleaner left the jewelry lying on the counter, someone else came in, sad because his mother died so the cleaner gave it to him to ease his grief. No proof of any kind of value, but he got the money.

[Bazinga]

5 hours ago, Shrek said:

I thought it was because the def admitted that she was supposed to pay the instalments for the one ipad and didn't pay anything.

Maybe, I don't recall defendant saying anything about Ipad installments as the case was boring save for Leon's surliness and defendant did not enunciate.

AngelaHunter:

Quote

I do recall being shocked at JM awarding some other character a lot of money for stuff he said was lost to theft(?) without a shred of proof or a single receipt. I must try to find the posts here.

I think this is the case you were referencing:

No Proof Necessary

 

Edited July 20, 2023 by Bazinga

[DoctorK]

First case was boring. The plaintiff was annoying and kept trying to interrupt the judge when it wasn’t her turn. The defendant was, I think, a sacrificial lamb sent in to take the fall, but JM was correct to find for the plaintiff. The defendant and his company need to reorganize the way they do business and maintain proper paper trails.

Second case was the magic fuse box. The plaintiff had a lot of trouble stating his case. He backtracked several times on his story, maybe he is just disorganized. This can be a messy situation where repairs are needed, but fixing one thing (that may need to be done) leaves other problems unfixed. If things happened the way the defendant claimed, that the plaintiff bought a fuse box and supplied it and wanted it installed, then I am not sure that the defendant is on the hook to keep searching to find some other problem. It is a good idea to provide the prospective repair people with all of the symptoms that have occurred but not try to give them a diagnosis that may send them in the wrong direction. Anyway, whatever else may have been going wrong with this auction car, at least one more problem (a broken battery post) is acknowledged by everybody which suggests to me that the plaintiff bought a lemon. Later, we find out that the car had a broken ground wire on the starter and something broken on the throttle body. Yep, a piece of junk. I almost (bit not quite) felt sorry for the plaintiff as he got all tangled up in his story, garbled his dates and what he said about the multitude of places he took his piece of junk to, and what each of them said. JM was trying to work with him from the beginning, but it was clear after a while that she was frustrated about being unable to get a coherent story line from the plaintiff without multiple internal inconsistencies. Surprise, it turns out that the defendant’s daughter as manager paid the plaintiff $200 to settle and the plaintiff took it. This makes the whole case moot and a complete waste of time.

On a side note, from the Cox program guide it looks like PC goes to reruns starting next week but the week after we get new Hot Benches (but since this is from COX I take it with a large grain of salt).

 

Edited July 20, 2023 by DoctorK
clarification

[AngelaHunter]

I enjoyed these non-violent cases. We got a bunch of clowns who were actually funny for a change. 

The slightly dopey, mouthy real estate agent P, versus GEORGE. She's suing for 1795$.  Strangely the managers approved her application for the new condo mere hours before she informed them she no longer wanted it but didn't tell her that.  Unfortunately, they only told her that her application was approved after she canceled it. Look! George has a whole bunch of unsigned papers to prove what he's saying! Sure, George. P gets her money back. George tells Doug in the hall he didn't bring the papers he needed, but they do exist. I was surprised he was allowed to ramble on for so long, but I guess Doug found the stupid double-talking BS entertaining.

George is wasting his talents. He looked and spoke like THE perfect material for a  government job as a bureaucrat. He's able to deflect, avoid answering direct questions, ramble on in babble-speak, and say absolutely nothing of any substance. I'm tellin' you, George - government job!

- Just an aside, but I really feel for people who are renting considering the sky-high price of rentals these days. Even the ancient dumps in the city where I grew up - which used to be comparatively very cheap -  are now so pricey very few could rent them.

49 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

Second case was the magic fuse box.

That was kind of awesome even though as @DoctorK points out, it was unnecessary. I'm guessing clothes manufacturers don't make shirts with tiny collars and enormous bodies, so P's shirt collar was about 2 times the width of his neck, giving him the look of a Galapagos tortoise.

Anyway, he tells JM he took his broken-down old "as-is" beater he got at auction to Def's garage. This is a garage that has no equipment or products with which to diagnose or fix cars. He was told to go find a fuse box. He went off to the AZ junkyard, bought one, and brought it back.

Oh, wait. That's not what happened. He just remembered. He actually meant he HAD the fuse box before he went to the  Def's garage and told them to install it.  Totally different story but oh, well. Trying to get a cogent story from him was very frustrating. Maybe he should go into business with GEORGE.

The Def shop owner knows what happened, even though he was away on vacation when all this happened, and brought no employees here who dealt with the P. P, in order to save a few bucks with the Def, refuses a diagnostic (it seems the garage DID have such equipment) and ends up taking his heap to 3 other garages, where one of them found the real problem and fixed it, so he wants 550$ even though he only paid Def 350.

Def's daughter offered him 200$ out of her pocket since he was acting up and causing a scene in the shop and she wanted him to go away. He took it. That's called a "settlement" which means he can't sue for anything else but he doesn't understand that. Def is "pissed" at his 42-year-old daughter (who came all the way from the Philippines to take care of business while Dad was away) doing this and doesn't give her the 200$ back.

P refused to listen to JM and kept muttering and mumbling while she was talking and had to be reprimanded. It's easy to see why he, at 53, can't understand anything. He never listens!

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Maybe, I don't recall defendant saying anything about Ipad installments as the case was boring save for Leon's surliness and defendant did not enunciate.

AngelaHunter:

I think this is the case you were referencing:

No Proof Necessary

 

Thank you! That's exactly what I was thinking of and what @PsychoKlown referenced!

Edited July 20, 2023 by AngelaHunter

[Guest]

JM has lost her ever-loving mind. She’s a joke. 

She’s no more a family therapist than I am a tv judge 

And for all that’s holy please tone down the volume.  Be loud does not equal being right.  The shouting was even louder than usual. 

Turned it off after the esteemed judge is bellowing that they need to hug.  As I said…she’s a joke  

Done

Wait, am I the only one thinking these two females are auditioning for a reality show?

Now.  Done. 

[DoctorK]

I really didn’t like the case with the twins. It started out with plaintiff twin coming in with her circus clown hairdo and apparently her oversize pajamas. Other twin at least knew how to dress for court. However, these twins are both showing their age and I don’t think they are behaving much out of the norm for their age. I think everybody (especially JM) is missing a real issue with twins who have spent their life together, doing everything together. They have had 19 years to build up little irritations and resentments at home and a strong leader/follower relationship, now they are going into a crowded room together with all of the other external stresses of leaving home and going to college. These girls should never have roomed  together;  in fact they should have thought about attending different colleges and let them develop their own individual persons. A big part of going away to college is to dive into the deep end of life, meet new people and make new friends (and enemies) and become a self-confident adult. They would probably get along a lot better with some time apart. I do agree with JM about Dad, he should have been more involved, maybe sitting down with each twin separately before they decided on a college to attend. Based on JM’s counselling and the reconciliation at the end, these sisters are going to continue totally dependent on being with each other until something comes up to force some separation such as marriage, career requirements, etc. Everybody doesn’t live in JM’s world with perfect offspring.

Harvey announces this was the last show. Goodbye to the show, I’ll miss most of it but not Harvey the clown.

Edited July 21, 2023 by DoctorK

[patty1h]

I read what @DoctorK said about this being the last show and when the judge came down off the bench and hugged the sisters and the dad, I got a tiny bit misty.  JM has showed that she has a big heart and being the mother of girls may have given her a deeper empathy to see those girls at such odds.   I hope that show of maternal concern will put those girls on the right path, and the parents will step in and maybe get them some family therapy.

Farewell JM, Douglas, Doug... not so much Harvey.   Happy trails until we meet again.

Edited July 21, 2023 by patty1h

[CrazyInAlabama]

The twins case is only exceptional for plaintiff twin's hair style.  Plaintiff's witness is their father.   There are five siblings.    Only the defendant knows how old the other siblings are.   Defendant twin was kicked out for dating (she's 19, boyfriend was 30) an much older man, 

Plaintiff claims her sister trashed everything she owned.  The twins still stay in the same room at school, and ignore each other.  Defendant never paid her half of the fridge rent, so plaintiff dumped her food out of it.   Judge M is angry at father, because the parents went on a cruise. So what?   Then, during the parents' absence, they let both sisters stay at the family home over the holiday break.  Plaintiff in the childhood room, and defendant in parents' bedroom.  

The defendant claims sister is stealing her clothes, and is actually wearing her jacket in court.    They both use "like" constantly, it's very irritating.   Plaintiff kept some of her clothes in parents' room, and claims sister/defendant ruined her clothes and shoes. Plaintiff claims the older sister called her and told her defendant cut up her clothes and pillows.  

Sadly, we'll all be subjected to Judge M's philosophy that being a sister is the best bond in the world.   Nope. 

Defendant admits cutting up clothes, shoes, and other items, but claims she didn't put conditioner on plaintiff's clothes.  

Defendant claims her family is ganging up on her.  Age difference with boyfriend is 11 years, but her parents' age difference is 12 years.   Plaintiff claims boyfriend of defendant is actually living with another woman.  I guess that's why defendant went to a homeless shelter, and not to stay with the boyfriend. 

After defendant was kicked out the second time, she claims she had to go stay in a homeless shelter.   Parents said defendant had to pay for the clothes and shoes she destroyed, and she refused to do that. So she couldn't come back to parents' home.   

Then, Judge M comes off the bench hugging both sisters, and then their dad. 

Doug interviews the sisters, who claim they're going to get back together again.  I don't even know about the ending.  

I'll miss Douglas and Doug, but not Judge M, and definitely not Harvey.   Unfortunately, the group for the next show for Judge M also does a bunch of other court shows, and they are even more scripted, so I'm out.  (One of Byron Allen's other shows is Paternity Court, so it's an example of what that company produces). 

Edited July 22, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[callie lee 29]

Now that I guess it's over let me state for the record...I like Harvey. I find some of what he says pretty good and sometimes cheesy. And while I like Doug I could do without the hall talk with the litigants.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

M has lost her ever-loving mind. She’s a joke. 

She’s no more a family therapist than I am a tv judge 

THIS is what we got for the last show? Really? I feel personally insulted. It was a big frickin' joke.

We had Medusa suing her sister... OH, I mean 'Heaven" suing her twin sister, "Angel" for something or other. Heaven and Angel don't behave in an angelic or heavenly way at all. There's Dad, who doesn't know the ages of the fruit of his loins and finds something amusing here. I got highly annoyed at these college girls sticking "LIKE" and/or "BASICALLY" before or after every damned word they said, never mind the "Me and her were".  I basically, like, got so, like, pissed off I couldn't like, watch anymore, basically. Yes, this is how all professionals will speak in the coming years.

Angel drips tears as she informs JM that her parents kicked her out, at 19, and she had to go to a hotel and then a shelter because it seems her 30-year-old boyfriend - love of her life, I guess -  didn't want her squatting at wherever he stays. Dir Galahad was fine with her bunking in a shelter. Maybe good reason for that. I find it suspicious when someone thirty wants a 19-year-old. Either that person is extremely immature or wants someone he can manipulate and who will make him feel superior.

I kept FFing, hoping against hope to get past this crap to another case. It was not to be. Yes, call me an old, crabby, cynical curmudgeon, but I started a big eye-roll when I stopped and heard JM extolling the virtues of the Three Miracles. Hit FF again and zoomed right past the Group Hug. Oh, please.

I saw a couple of minutes of the judges talking. JM refers to the Miracles as "MY daughters". Shows how much YOU count, John.

All that wasn't enough. We then got The Levin and his little meander down Memory Lane. UGH. FF again. The end.

Fuck you, Levin, and your flappy cake hole. He found it hysterically funny when someone relates how, in a two-hour meeting with The Levin, he got in maybe 25 words.

 

22 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I'll miss Douglas and Doug, but not Judge M. 

At this point, I agree.

[AngelaHunter]

30 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff claims boyfriend of defendant is actually living with another woman. 

Thanks. I figured it was something like that, but Angel never questions her man leaving her at a shelter to fend for herself. What a prince.

Edited July 21, 2023 by AngelaHunter

[Guest]

I still think this was a veiled audition for a reality show. 

I missed JM’s reference to the Holy Trinity. Yay me. 

I did catch the final moments and saw that she was spilling out of her black dress to shut out the lights.  

Another possibility in my suspicious mind…she’ll start a YouTube show with the Holy Trinity. 

And with that - I’m out.  Pizza must be ordered and wine must be drunk. Basically. 

[AngelaHunter]

49 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

I missed JM’s reference to the Holy Trinity. Yay me. 

Yes, when she was lecturing the Heavenly Angel duo, she informed them that HER girls are attached at the hip and would defend each other to the death, or some shit like that. I hit FF before she finished.

I'm going to have a major shift in my lifestyle here, without the hearty and much-needed laughter to be had with all the primo witticisms and incomparable snark you people provide.🙁 (My niece takes exception to "you people". Tuff.)

I would like the repeats to go back years, before I started watching, instead of weeks but I'm probably hoping for too much there.

[Taeolas]

A bit weak for a final episode for such a long running show; but as others have noted a lot of the recent cases have been weak.

 

And FYI, JMM has already confirmed she's starting a new court show ( Justice for the People with Judge Milian)  in syndication for the fall. No word on how many of the rest of the People's Court crew she'll bring with her but it seems like it is just her. 

[DoctorK]

24 minutes ago, Taeolas said:

JMM has already confirmed she's starting a new court show ( Justice for the People with Judge Milian)  in syndication for the fall.

I will probably give it a try but for me I think PC has run its course, everything gets stale eventually. I think JM lately has come across as more arbitrary and less balanced than she usually was before the last couple of years. I will miss the long run of snarking on PC (a target rich environment) here on Primetimer and of course in the wild and woolly days of TWoP.