The People's Court - General Discussion

[Bazinga]

Tomorrow's episode is season 22, episode 3, which originally aired September 5, 2018.  Discussion on page 113.

Direct link: "Stealing From the Deceased."

Edited August 8, 2023 by Bazinga

[Guest]

9 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I would have so enjoyed a video of those bloated losers sitting on their big butts and putting all their severely limited brain power toward writing that laughable letter.

And there’s not a glint of shame when they’re called out on it!  My only thinking is that it happens so much (and very few consequences) that they just let it roll.

A few weeks ago I got home from the grocery store and saw that I was charged for three boxes of strawberries rather than the two I had in my bags.  I know it might sound petty and some people would let it go but I called the store. They were very nice, told me next time I’m in go to the front desk and they’ll give me the $4.99.  I said to her how will they know I’m telling the truth?  She said tell them you spoke with Erin. 

I’m in the store and I approach the desk. A wizened woman is behind the plexiglass and I told her I was charged for three boxes…she takes my slip and penny, goes in the register, gives me a five and a smile.  I told her I spoke with Erin and that I was concerned they’d think I was cheating them. The wizened woman had a good laugh and said no, you don’t look like the scammers we get.  And not for five bucks.  She said our scammers fall in the produce aisle and want an ambulance. 

Didn’t know whether to be happy that I didn’t fit the profile of a scammer or sad that there are people scamming businesses (and declining elderly relatives) just so they could make a buck. 

Did anyone say where the bloated grifters are from?  It didn’t sound like they were from Connecticut. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

I just watched the hysterically funny rerun, "Stealing From the Deceased".    I'm so glad the plaintiff lost, except for the $20 worth of junk defendant brought to court, and one other item they packed in the late neighbor/uncle's garage.   I'm guessing that plaintiff barely saw the uncle.     I had to laugh when plaintiff read her list of 'valuable items' she wanted from the condo.   

A 4 lb bag of suger, a frog garden statue that probably came from a garage sale, the nutcracker looked very cheap, and I'm guessing the entire list wasn't worth over $100 total.   

Edited August 8, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[Guest]

The theme this week must be Scam the Deceased or Almost Deceased.

I’d say I’m glad I have nothing to fight over except these cretins would rob the pennies off a dead mans eyes just so they wouldn’t have to look for a job. 

Or rob the pennies off an aunties eyes (before she’s dead) so two huffalumps can fulfill their dream of owning a farm in Connecticut. 

Disgusting animals. Too bad when they were faux buying the farm a friggin’ mule didn’t kick both of them in the head.  

That alone would have been worth the price of admission. 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I just watched the hysterically funny rerun, "Stealing From the Deceased". 

I was watching this quite happily, thinking I'd never seen it. It's only when I heard about the 4lbs of sugar which was one of the items the frog-faced P accused the Def of stealing that I recalled it. Oh, and the two rolls of paper towels, outdated canned goods, and some cheap gift-store junk. Well, she thinks he stole a bunch of other stuff in boxes too, even though she has no idea what was in them. All this crap is worth exactly 5K.

True, she gave the ill-tempered painter a key to come and go. Maybe he brought someone with him and maybe they stole the sugar. How would she know? She's sure it was the def who pilfered it.

She's welcome to take back that awful cat ceramic and the backward, elasticized Nutcracker. The other $4,996 worth of valuables? Yeah, stuff it, lady. You're not "anal-retentive" (Ugh!) you're a disgusting, shameless, little money-grubber.

"The judge let you have it!" Doug cheerfully informs her. 😆

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

"The judge let you have it!" Doug cheerfully informs her. 😆

I could watch Doug’s insults to the losers all day long. 

Imagine. A loop of The Best of Doug.  I’m there. 

And do you s’pose there was an anteek mirra in the boxes?  

[badhaggis]

11 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

I could watch Doug’s insults to the losers all day long. 

Imagine. A loop of The Best of Doug.  I’m there. 

And do you s’pose there was an anteek mirra in the boxes?  

Would this anteek mirra be from Fingerhut?

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, badhaggis said:

Would this anteek mirra be from Fingerhut?

Winner.  Winner.  Steak sandwich dinner. 

[Bazinga]

Today's episode was originally aired November 15, 2018. 

The title gives away the first case topic, but I will quote AngelaHunter's comment, "Skipped Cretins Abusing Dogs," to warn AngelaHunter and others to fast forward through case 1.

Direct link: "Your Dog Killed My Dog!"

[Bazinga]

Today's episode aired December 7, 2018. 

Link: "Freaking Out on an Ex."

Only one post actually about the episode is from AngelaHunter.  This leads to a small discussion about man-babies.   I'll save everyone the effort of the link, here's that post:

Quote

Ugh. The kind of cases I dislike. Give me more lawyers!  First were the battling lovebirds. I had to turn on my CC for this, and was surprised to find out the plaintiff's name is "Bruce" when the def called him "Boos." Def's new squeeze, Mr. Hughes, was literally slack-jawed and appeared to be heavily sedated here. Anyway, fighting and brawling and busted windows/doors and smashed up apartment and a video of def beating Boo's motorbike with a shovel. That woman has staying power. She just beat the shit out of that thing, then moved on to something else.  Def says about "Boos", "He hit me all the time" but that wasn't enough for her to end the big romance. It seems that only happened when Boos came over, broke down her door and started "tusslin'" with Mr. Hughes. It's nice when middleaged people have all the impulse control of toddlers. Anyway, we did learn a new term for people gettin' it on over a period of time: "Dealing". "We wasn't dealing no more." At first I thought she was talking about drugs, but no, she meant bumping uglies. JM is disgusted at their savage behavior and awards both sides the same amount, so neither gets anything. Now piss off.

Then we had another silly, overgrown baby snowflake. This one is a 28-year old man - a elvish, pin-headed idiot -  who needs Daddy to guarantee a lease on a condo for his baby boy. I guess Baby either couldn't afford to do it himself, or he really wanted to live across the street from the beach but couldn't pay for that, and Daddy agrees he should have it. He deserves it! Daddy is here today to speak up for his moronic child and fight for his baby's security deposit. Def landlord shows damages The Boy did, and other things, like leaving a profanity-laced paper in a public area after someone stole his shoes which he left outside his door. No one should steal Baby's stuff! How dare they? JM rips him a new one for his immature stupidity, while his girlfriend, wearing skin-tight clothes that were not flattering, sits there grinning as though her darling is just too clever and cute. What does the pushing-30-Boy care? Daddy pays. I guess 28 is the new 14.

Finally, an amazingly boring case about credit card debt and a cell phone bill. Plaintiff, who speaks in slo-mo, gave his hard-rode "fiancee", here with her purse clamped to her shoulder, a CC and put her on his phone plan. She pays until they break up. He wants the money. Snooze-fest.

[CrazyInAlabama]

This morning's rerun is the "Cheerleading Crisis", about the mother who is suing the trainer, and club organizer for every penny she can get back.   ANother person who gets discounts, doesn't pay much, and Judge M gives the plaintiff a bonanza.    Harvey misses the point, vounteering was part of the deal, fund-raising is a big part of almost everything. 

The mother/plaintiff also did receive almost everything at a discount, and of the $900 cost for something (I missed what it was for), only paid $200.  Mother was over $700 ahead, so the refund Judge M gave her was pure profit for her. 

Edited August 10, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[Bazinga]

Right, CrazyInAlabama.  Here is what I posted back on July 14th about the episode. 

Quote

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.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

This morning's rerun is the "Cheerleading Crisis", about the mother who is suing the trainer, and club organizer for every penny she can get back.   ANother person who gets discounts, doesn't pay much, and Judge M gives the plaintiff a bonanza.    Harvey misses the point, vounteering was part of the deal, fund-raising is a big part of almost everything. 

Absolutely.  I can’t tell you how many bags of popcorn I bought in the name of funding to defray costs for cheerleading trips and camp.  And coupons for little league baseball.  

Harvey is a blowhard who thinks he’s an expert on everything.  He’s not. 

Perhaps at one time fundraising was on a volunteer basis but I think that went away with platform shoes and macrame plant holders. 😋

[Primal Slayer]

Just watched the final episode and so sad it's officially over!!!

I was surprised they didn't have MM say anything post mortem. 

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Harvey is a blowhard who thinks he’s an expert on everything.

The only thing that wizened little troll is expert at is getting his droopy, flappy-jawed, ugly mug stuck as often and as close as possible to the camera.

How many times has he had the former Hall Clown give erroneous intros in that B-horror movie voice?

The repeats I got this afternoon? I said all I had to say in the quote above by @Bazinga. What a bunch of distasteful morons, every one of them. I wonder if Daddy is still defending and caring for his 28-year-old little boy, Bret, who even in this old episode was old enough to have cultivated a pretty good-sized beer belly. I guess his girlfriend liked it.

Ah, maybe I'm just jealous because at that age I and all my friends were on our own to sink or swim. No indulgent Daddy to get us into a condo on the beach or fight our battles for us.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I hated that overgrown brat.   His dog took a dump on a neighbor's door mat, and he screamed at her, he wrote that profanity laced note and posted it in the hallway, and apparently it wasn't the first time he did that.    I hate that Judge M and the brat's father were giving him a penny back.   They should have given the landlord $5,000 for putting up with him.     

[Guest]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

The repeats I got this afternoon? I said all I had to say in the quote above by @Bazinga. What a bunch of distasteful morons, every one of them. I wonder if Daddy is still defending and caring for his 28-year-old little boy, Bret, who even in this old episode was old enough to have cultivated a pretty good-sized beer belly. I guess his girlfriend liked it.

I also wonder if Bret figured out how to get another pair of glasses or was he just going to walk around blind as a bat because he had nary a clue how to handle the problem. 

As much as I despised Dad and his useless son I couldn’t help feeling a twinge of sadness. We on this board know Dad isn’t doing this loser kid of his any favors and when Dad drops dead from the stress poor Junior will end up in a therapists office in the fetal position sobbing that he can’t go on with life.  

He’s doing that doughy, foul mouthed loser injustice by taking care of all his problems.  This case is similar to the smart ass high school kid who trashed the luxurious Air BnB while Dad was making excuses.  Another winner. 

[Bazinga]

Today's episode originally aired November 22, 2018.

Discussion link: "Tussle Over a Tow."

[AngelaHunter]

18 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Discussion link: "Tussle Over a Tow."

Thanks! I certainly re-enjoyed the grinning, idiotic hipster douchebag with the greasy porcupine tail slapped on his narrow head. What I liked best was JM's disdain and utter loathing of the little shit. I think she really wanted to slap him.  In the hall, he smoothes back his oily quills and informs Doug that he feels JM was completely wrong.

I didn't enjoy the bartender as much. A man past middle age who feels he should get special recognition or praise for actually showing up and doing his job, and P who had no idea he should bring evidence to support his claim.

[Guest]

On 8/11/2023 at 7:18 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I didn't enjoy the bartender as much. A man past middle age who feels he should get special recognition or praise for actually showing up and doing his job

This reminds me of an old tried and true Chris Rock bit where he goes on and on about fathers caring for their children and all the fawning women praising him to the skies because he’s in the park playing with his kids 

Rock, as only Rock can screams “But that’s what you’re supposed to do.  Why do you expect or accept praise?  That’s the role of the father.  You shouldn’t expect praise for something you should be doing.”

Rock didn’t mention bartender contestants on TPC but I’m assuming he’d say the same thing. 

But that’s the mentality of today. Wanting constant praise and recognition for doing something they’re supposed to do.  

[AngelaHunter]

14 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

This reminds me of an old tried and true Chris Rock bit where he goes on and on about fathers caring for their children

GMTA. I don't remember much but I do clearly recall that and in fact, I quoted that very Chris Rock skit here when a litigant was being praised for caring for his child who was being mistreated at the baby mama's. 

CR mocked men who stand there bragging, "I take care of my kids!"

It would be like me loudly announcing with pride, "I pay my mortgage every month!"  I'd get the same reaction: "That's what you're supposed to do, you foolish bitch!"

[Bazinga]

Today's episode was originally aired December 5, 2018.

Link to the discussion:

"Cracking Up Your Boyfriend's Car."

[AngelaHunter]

The only point of interest in these repeats was in the second case, where the somewhat bumbling lawyer who doesn't believe in evidence was suing his somewhat creepy former client.

My Samsung TeeVee gave me a whole bunch of free channels and one of them is some sort of Court TV. I watched a bit of it late at night. JM mentioned that Def's case, in which his neighbours sought protective orders against him (probably with very good reason), was heard by Judge Kelly. I think that must be Judge Caroll Kelly, who I watched a few times in her Protection Court. The proceedings were rather dull and the cases sordid and depressing, so I gave up on that.

Yeah, I know. Not exactly a scintillating info share, but oh, well.

 

[Bazinga]

Regarding Monday's repeat with the boyfriend repossessing a car he gave his girlfriend after they broke up and his bailing her out of jail and now wanting to be repaid: I do not understand how Harvey always gets his post-case commentary in loan/gift cases wrong.

Harvey: "OK, I mean, this is really simple, Doug, you cannot turn a gift into a loan because the relationship changes."

While Harvey's comment is true in general, it in noway matches this case.  The plaintiff boyfriend won the case.  The judge's ruling was that the boyfriend paying her bail was a loan that defendant girlfriend has to repay as she promised.  How is that Harvey's "turn a gift into a loan because the relationship changes?"  The ruling is counter to what Harvey's comment is saying.  Here, JM ruled the bail payment was a loan that she believes the girlfriend asked the boyfriend for and even promised to repay.  JM did not rule that it was a gift that the boyfriend is then saying is a loan after they broke up.  That's the defendant's losing argument, Harvey.

I really don't understand how Harvey's comments are often unrelated to the actual case he is commenting about or just plain wrong. 

I will not miss Harvey's presence on JM's next program.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Bazinga

[Bazinga]

Today's episode originally aired on January 9, 2019.

Link to the discussion:

"Refusing a Refund."

Edited August 15, 2023 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

9 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Harvey: "OK, I mean, this is really simple, Doug, you cannot turn a gift into a loan because the relationship changes."

The Levin shrimp is not interested in the details of the cases or the law.  That self-absorbed, obnoxious troll is only interested in two things: digging up dirt on so-called "celebs" and getting his distasteful mug and flappy piehole in front of a camera.

I forgot about his obsession with trotting out his sleazy "hardly knew 'er" garbage. Okay, so three things.

I wish someone could have made THIS commentary at the end of every show:

"OK, I mean, this is really simple, Levin. You cannot text and drive just because you think you're above the laws that little people have to follow."

I wonder what will become of the former Hall Clown. Maybe Svengoolie can hire him to make uber-cheesy, silly intros for B-horror movies.

[Paperclips]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

The Levin shrimp is not interested in the details of the cases or the law.  That self-absorbed, obnoxious troll is only interested in two things: digging up dirt on so-called "celebs" and getting his distasteful mug and flappy piehole in front of a camera.

I forgot about his obsession with trotting out his sleazy "hardly knew 'er" garbage. Okay, so three things.

I wish someone could have made THIS commentary at the end of every show:

"OK, I mean, this is really simple, Levin. You cannot text and drive just because you think you're above the laws that little people have to follow."

I wonder what will become of the former Hall Clown. Maybe Svengoolie can hire him to make uber-cheesy, silly intros for B-horror movies.

Svengoolie has too much class to hire Harvey!

I wonder when we'll know who picks up the new show?

[CrazyInAlabama]

https://allenmedia.tv/deadline-the-peoples-court-judge-marilyn-milian-launching-new-legal-show-with-allen-media-group/  this is about the Byron Allen group's announcement of Judge M's new show.   I thought it was interesting that they produce 9 of 11 currently produced court TV shows.     The group is also adding the new Mathis show, and another judge Eboni Williams. 

I guess the only ones they don't air are Judy Justice, Tribunal Justice (the 2 from Hot Bench, and Adam Levy, Judge Judy's son), and Hot Bench.   Tribunal hadn't aired when this was announced, at least I don't think it had.   I couldn't find a list of exactly when the show will start airing, or a list of stations.  

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[Bazinga]

Today's episode was originally aired January 14, 2019.

Link to the discussion:

"Construction Nightmare."

[CrazyInAlabama]

 

https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court/?do=findComment&comment=8080280

This is the descpicable case described above :"Refusing to Accept Responsiblity"

The first dog attack case was ridiculous, plaintiff's off leash dog was attacked, she had a lot of time to leash her dog but never did.   Defendant already paid half the vet bills, and that's all she gets. 

The last case is some fool suing the ex who  he beat the living snot out of her on multiple occasions.   I agree that plaintiff looks stoned in court.   He can't even open his eyes, or nevers look at the Judge.   Plaintiff doesn't ever even glance at the Judge, how disrespectful. 

Defendant had a bunch of assaults by plaintiff, but claims no one notified her of court dates, so nothing happens to plaintiff.   Defendant dumped her former love muffin's stuff outside, and plaintiff is suing her.   Judge will make arrangements for defendant to give back the slippers, and plaintiff gets $189.   Why did plaintiff get $189 for property tossed, when Judge M said keeping property for 30 days is sufficient, and plaintiff had three months to pick up his junk?   Another bizarre decision by Judge M.  

Just the other day on another episode, Judge M said the plaintiff's property was abandoned, and that was less than three months the junk plaintiff left behind was at defendant's home. 

The daycare contractor case was ridiculous.   I believe everything the contractor said about plaintiff increasing the scope of work to the huge amount she finally paid him.   I also believe everything the contractor said about the daycare woman stalking him, sending him obscene pictures, and how else would he know about her tramp stamp? 

Edited August 17, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[Bazinga]

53 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Why did plaintiff get $189 for property tossed, when Judge M said keeping property for 30 days is sufficient, and plaintiff had three months to pick up his junk?   Another bizarre decision by Judge M.

That was my comment, too, CrazyinAlabama.  I wrote:

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.

Others said she admitted to the IPad.  I totally missed that fact.  But, I guess, that is the answer to our question.

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Today's episode was originally aired January 14, 2019.

Link to the discussion:

"Construction Nightmare."

Just an observation I didn't make before since in those days I maybe didn't notice that so many cases, even ones centered around furniture, old cars, or in this case, renovations, nearly always involve some hypersexuality.

I believed every single word the Def said about the middle-aged, rotund P "Facetiming" him with a video of her naked and... pleasuring herself in the shower, (Eww!) promising to get some reconstructive surgery "down there",  and offering to support him. No way could he make that up. Ditto for the butterfly just above her de-constructed hoo-haw. (Double Eww). Did she expect JM to believe it just came up in casual conversation? "Hey! Put the hammer down. Wanna know where I have a tattoo? Wanna see it?"

I wonder how many clients she has now at her daycare after the parents heard this lewd, filthy vulgarity.  Put a lid on the libido, lady. The contractor is not interested, no matter how much you get it tightened up.

I also really needed to know how a daycare operator makes 30K/MONTH. Really? Kids must be packed in wall to wall, like sardines.

If she has that much disposable income and an unquenchable thirst for a man, someone should tell her about the FB MeatMarket. She'll be inundated with a locust-like swarm of potential suitors there.

[Bazinga]

Today's episode was originally aired January 10, 2019.

Link to the discussion:

"Friendship Ruined Over a Loan."

[AngelaHunter]

18 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Today's episode was originally aired January 10, 2019.

Link to the discussion:

"Friendship Ruined Over a Loan."

Some of these are worse on a second viewing. Instead of giving 10K to those lampreys, this woman should spend her money on psychological help to find out WHY she feels the need to buy the friendship of amoral grifters and scammers.

"I'm an idiot" doesn't cover it.

Levin, for the travel agent case: "It's the case of Have Lawsuit, Will Travel".

How about a retroactive "Fuck you, Levin"?

[Bazinga]

Today's episode was originally aired January 28, 2019.

Link to the discussion:

"Air Conditioner Crisis."

[CrazyInAlabama]

The air conditioner case was ridiculous, the a/c broke three years after installation, and whoever worked on it used duct tape.   There is no way the defendant did that.

The influencer case is ridiculous too.   I'm sick of influencers, and that's what the plaintiff is.  

[Paperclips]

Looks like the new show is going to start on September 11 and air on Plex.  Hopefully it gets picked up other places. - Couldn't get the link to work but here it is.   Douglas wasn't in the cast list - just MM.

 

Justice for the People with Judge Milian · Season 1 Episode 1 · September 11, 2023 Release Date is September 11, 2023 - See the Cast and More - Plex

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The air conditioner case was ridiculous, the a/c broke three years after installation, and whoever worked on it used duct tape.   There is no way the defendant did that.

The influencer case is ridiculous too.   I'm sick of influencers, and that's what the plaintiff is.  

Definitely.  But you failed to mention Tommy “moneybags” Duncan.  What a prize. 

Todays contestants were in a league all their own.  The air conditioner scammer swearing she was telling the truth.  Yeah right.  
 

The pudgy self-proclaimed influencer who likes to show her boobies and buttocks in dresses that look like someone took a scissor to them to show off her ample thighs.  And the defendant seemed higher than a kite in the park - perfect choice to promote my brand.  Yeah, I’d give him a grand a month.  Idiot!

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

Todays contestants were in a league all their own.  The air conditioner scammer swearing she was telling the truth.  Yeah right.

I'm enjoying these repeats, mostly because I've forgotten them for the most part. Yeah, my memory sucks and I'm okay with that.

I'm trying to imagine being a scammer, like the big a/c heffalump, standing there and all but admitting she pocketed most of the insurance money and trying to say that any a/c company would piece together some junk with masking tape. She thought droning stupidities non-stop over JM would win her case. So many don't even have the brains to feel shame, or hustling is just their natural way of life. I guess she never watched this show to learn that "the cheap comes out expensive."

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

The pudgy self-proclaimed influencer 

The only thing more ridiculous about the dumb influencer is the fact that oodles of idiots want her to influence them. But, hey - it's a victimless crime so carry on!

How can someone so stupid that she admits she pays a person who looks like a Grindr gigolo and thinks he's an Adonis $1,000 a month to do nothing feel she's any kind of example? Even the gigolo was taken aback at her attempt at being uber-sexy. Hey, Ms. Influencer? I'll gladly send out tons of emails every month for 1K. Holler me up, okay?

I only remembered the PinHead when he dug a wad of 20$ bills out of his pocket and waved it at JM to prove he could indeed pay for the Mercedes he so dearly wanted and felt he deserved. He works under the table! Taxes? What are those?

For once, a used car salesman looked like a paragon of virtue compared to the person suing him.

[AngelaHunter]

17 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

The air conditioner scammer swearing she was telling the truth.

Two things: This is yet another case where I enjoy visualizing scammers coming up with the scam. You know she and her silent husband, like so many others,  sat there saying, "The insurance will give us $2800. We can get a cheaper unit with no warranty - don't worry, baby. If it breaks we got plenty of masking tape -  and ding ding ding, let the cash register ring!" More dopes who duped themselves.  Duh. Most enjoyable.

Anyway, do most insurance companies put the cheque only in the name of the insured? That would seem to guarantee a lot of workers getting stiffed or shortchanged. Once any member of the legion of the shady/amoral gets their sweaty hands on that money, they're loathe to part with it.

 

18 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Tommy “moneybags” Duncan

😆

[Guest]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Anyway, do most insurance companies put the cheque only in the name of the insured? That would seem to guarantee a lot of workers getting stiffed or shortchanged. Once any member of the legion of the shady/amoral gets their sweaty hands on that money, they're loathe to part with it

We’ve only made one claim to our homeowners insurance.   Five or so years ago we had an issue with our dishwasher.  It ran all night. Or should I say it poured water out of the dishwasher all night.  Woke up in the morning to suds and water on our hardwood floors. The water ran into the dining room through the floor downstairs to the carpeted basement.  Our kitchen cabinets were warped so everything had to be gutted, dried out and replaced.  Total damage was 62k.

I never saw a penny from the insurance company. My contractor dealt with them and collected from them. I saw invoices and copies of checks written out to him.   He handled that end. 

But a $2800 air conditioner might be a different story.  My guess is that they did give her the money and she had other plans for it. Maybe there’s a ceiling  where no you don’t personally get it but under said amount is okay  

And the other thing two insurance representatives came out to make sure there was no funny business. The one rep said if this happened in his home his wife would have packed up and left. I just remember tons of receipts and job sheets with dates and times.  I also remember my contractor saying our insurance company was impressive and timely. 

If those grifters scammed $2800 out of the insurance company could you imagine what they’d attempt to do if their dishwasher ran all night?  

And the real kick in the head is that there is zero embarrassment when someone calls them on it. 

No wonder insurance rates are so high. 

 

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

The water ran into the dining room through the floor downstairs to the carpeted basement.  Our kitchen cabinets were warped so everything had to be gutted, dried out and replaced.  Total damage was 62k.

Oh.My.Gawd. It's easy for someone to say, "Don't worry. Insurance will cover it." Unfortunately, it can't cover the stress, the mess, and the disruption of lives.

I only had a collapsed deck and a busted heat pump. My ins. co. sent a cheque in the names of me and the contractors. The a/c guy didn't want to deal with insurance, since he said they've given him a hard time previously, so we paid him ourselves and got the money back later from ins.

The deck guy - I found this amusing - was very young and when I presented him with the cheque and told him to sign it, he looked at it like it was a slate covered with ancient script.  He started to sign it on the front until I corrected him. Cheques are going the way of the dinosaur. Gee, I feel so old.

Too bad I couldn't figure out how to scam someone like our dear, cunning litigants do. Maybe they're abject failures, but by golly, they try!

Edited August 19, 2023 by AngelaHunter

[Bazinga]

Today's episode was originally aired February 5, 2019.

Discussion link:

Angry Aunt

[CrazyInAlabama]

The first case about the man who had a long felony, and misdemeanor convictions, gets pulled over by Miami police, and jailed for warrants.   His car was impounded, and the tow yard followed the rules about notificiations to address of record.  The tow company sent letters to P.O. Box, brother's address plaintiff uses, and the lien holder.   Plaintiff denies the license plate wasn't registered to the car, and says the car didn't have liens.   Then, when no one came to bail the car out, it was junked.   Judge M keeps sympathizing with the plaintiff, and says though the tow company followed the law, it's awful that plaintiff lost his car. 

Is Judge M kidding?    The man has a conviction record a mile long, lies about everything, and was kept in jail for a long time through his own actions.   I have no sympathy for him. Harvey the Gerbil says plaintiff had 36 convictions on his record.   Ridiculous attitude by Judge M.  

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Ridiculous attitude by Judge M.

I'll usually watch repeats, mostly because I don't remember much about them, but I caught one glimpse of the ugly mug of Calvin of the Forty Felonies and Twenty Aliases and remembered how JM felt sorry for him (what about his victims?) and couldn't FF quickly enough. Why didn't she have sympathy for the tow guy, dragged here by that POS for nothing?

Maybe JM can look him up if he's in one of his brief non-incarcerated periods and hire him to work on her new show. I'm sure her trust and belief in him will be well rewarded.

The world is seriously messed up when a life-long criminal can commit dozens of felonies yet still be out slithering around.

[Guest]

Agree completely CrazyInAlabama and AngelaHunter.  It was disgusting the way she fawned over the criminal bastard.  I have absolutely no soft spots for those getting behind the wheel after drinking themselves into oblivion not to mention his other felonies.  

At one of my college reunions I ran into someone that was in almost every class with me.  That was the basis of our friendship. Anyway he is now an attorney whose specialty is getting OUIs  dismissed. He bragged about it and if you go to his page the testimonies of his clients will make your stomach lurch a bit.  

I often wonder if any of the champions of these people would be singing the same song if one of their loved ones happened to be a victim of a drunken driver.  I doubt it. 

Kudos to Doug for saying what JM should have said (and more). 

My question after seeing this rerun is how in fresh hell did this show last so long with JM at the helm?  Purely rhetorical.  I really don’t care. 
 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

I often wonder if any of the champions of these people would be singing the same song if one of their loved ones happened to be a victim of a drunken driver.  I doubt it.

OR, if the nickel-grabbing lawyer him/herself becomes a victim, paralyzed and disabled for life because some asshole wanted to drink and drive? You'd better believe they'd make themselves a poster child for stricter laws against drunk driving.

Who really cares what happens to innocent people victimized by the "I do what I want" crowd of knuckle-draggers?

As for JM, I've often noticed she bends over backward to be seen as super-liberal and politically correct, a champion for the underdog, even if it means defending some unrepentant criminal for life, a "lying sack of garbage." Thanks, Levin. One of your dumb eye-rollers finally came in handy.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

[CrazyInAlabama]

I was relieved to see the next show with Judge M will be on Plex, which I never heard of, so I won't even be tempted to watch it.  

The production company do the scripted judge shows, and that may delay the show even further, because of the Hollywood situation right now.  Either way, I'm not watching it. 

Edited August 22, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I was relieved to see the next show with Judge M will be on Plex, which I never heard of, so I won't even be tempted to watch it.  

Same here.  I thought Plex was a movie channel but I have to be wrong in that regard.   

No interest either because I haven’t even checked our cable lineup to see if we get that channel. Almost positive we don’t.  And no way I’d subscribe  

[Bazinga]

Today's episode's original air date was January 22, 2019.  Please note the episode title and be prepared to skip case one.

Discussion here: "Your Dog Ripped Off My Dog's Ear!"