The People's Court - General Discussion

[BubblingKettle]

If the illiterate mom with the furniture problem would have been on Judge Mathis, he would have offered to hook her up with adult literacy/ELL services. I know it's not exactly the job of a judge to recommend services, but, jeez, JMM pretty much pretended she didn't hear it. I work in the literacy profession and, with adults, the most difficult part is getting them to share that they are illiterate. Well, the cat was out of the bag in the courtroom...it's a shame JMM didn't take that opportunity. I always admire Judge Mathis for hooking litigants up with rehab stays, college scholarships, etc. He's not showy about it; he seems to be interested in helping people improve their lives.

[Rick Kitchen]

Sorry, MM, but pit bulls were not created by God to protect their owners, they were created by men to fight in pits.  Hence the name.

[teebax]

NOTE: if you're a renter and have some furniture, electronics, whatever, you might need renters insurance - it isn't all that expensive. But, and it's a big but, just like the TV judges want to see proof of your property, the insurance adjuster isn't going to just take your word for your losses.

This can not be stated firmly enough. There's another benefit to renters insurance (and homeowners for that matter.) Your property is covered anywhere it goes. So if your property is stolen from your car (happened to me after a car accident) you have coverage through your homeowners insurance. If you lose your engagement ring (also happened to me) that's covered too.

 

A lot of people think their auto insurance will cover their property if it's stolen from a car, and it will only cover permanently attached items, like your car stereo. Anyway, thanks for mentioning that. I make it my business to tell every renter I know to make sure they get insurance; it's not even that expensive!

[Eliza422]

This can not be stated firmly enough. There's another benefit to renters insurance (and homeowners for that matter.) Your property is covered anywhere it goes. So if your property is stolen from your car (happened to me after a car accident) you have coverage through your homeowners insurance. If you lose your engagement ring (also happened to me) that's covered too.

 

A lot of people think their auto insurance will cover their property if it's stolen from a car, and it will only cover permanently attached items, like your car stereo. Anyway, thanks for mentioning that. I make it my business to tell every renter I know to make sure they get insurance; it's not even that expensive!

When i was renting, which I did for many years, I always had insurance - and my friends / coworkers couldn't understand why I "wasted" my money on it! It seemed like a real mystery to everyone why I would do it. Amazing!

[SRTouch]

Sorry, MM, but pit bulls were not created by God to protect their owners, they were created by men to fight in pits.  Hence the name.

True, but you could argue that all domestic animals were in part created by man (well, my cats would argue that they'really perfect, so they must be God's creations.)

Pit bulls (actually a collection of breeds) were bred to be fearless, stubborn, pugnacious and athletic. They were also bred to be obedient, good with children, and loyal to "their" people. At one time they were considered "nanny" dogs who could be trusted to watch over babies and toddlers. In fact, if you look up the American Pit Bull Terrier

http://dogtime.com/dog-breeds/american-pit-bull-terrier

you'll find that the site says they are poor guard dogs, despite what MM said, because they're too friendly by nature.

The real problem is that WAY too many people get dogs without doing any research into what to expect. (Recent thread in Judge Judy about American husky comes to mind.) To make matters worse, once they get the dog they have no idea how to train or socialize their animal. An untrainded, unsocialized dog will revert to his inbred instinct. Unfortunately, pit bulls (and other large powerful breeds) can do a lot of damage if left to react according to instinct.

[SRTouch]

First case is Mom suing daughter for repayment of loan and property damage. Seems deadbeat dad's tax refund was given to Mom because of back child support. This back child support was less than $25 a week for 4 kids, but now totals $46,000 for years of back payments for the kids, who are now adults. Mom says her kids don't have a relationship with Dad, but part of daughter's story is Dad called her to let her know Mom was getting some back support, and he hoped she'd share the windfall with the kids.

So anyway, Mom gets 4,000 bucks from Dad's refund. Daughter has terrible credit, but good job. Daughter wants to move with her 4 kids, but credit so bad she has to pay first, last and deposit - total $3,000. Mom loans her the money, expecting a hundred bucks a week.

After three weeks of no payment, Mom is burning up the phone, and daughter stops returning calls, and then won't answer when Mom calls. When Mom shows up, uninvited but with with presents and food, for grandkid's birthday party, big brouhaha ensues. A couple days later daughter goes to Mom's to confront her about showing up at party. Fight ensues, pushing and shoving, Mom's TV and laptop are damaged - which is part of Mom's lawsuit.

Daughter feels she should be entitled to money since it comes from back support, and besides Mom should be willing to give her money when she needs it. Judge tries to explain the $4,000 from Dad is not child support, but is repayment of money Mom spent years ago to support daughter and her siblings. Daughter dances around question of whether it was a loan or gift.

Verdict has daughter paying the $3,000 loan and they split property damage. In the hall both sides say they love each other, but neither apologizes and no hug.

[cattykit]

A lot of people think their auto insurance will cover their property if it's stolen from a car, and it will only cover permanently attached items, like your car stereo. Anyway, thanks for mentioning that. I make it my business to tell every renter I know to make sure they get insurance; it's not even that expensive!

Years ago I ordered my first laptop computer to be delivered to my work.  It was stolen after the receptionist signed for it and left it sitting outside her office with all the other deliveries.  I thought I was SOL and then I was advised by a colleague to file under my HO policy, which I did, and then advised to file with my CC for the deductible, which I also did, and both efforts were successful.  So it was upsetting to deal with but no out of pocket expenses for me.

 

 

Mom says her kids don't have a relationship with Dad, but part of daughter's story is Dad called her to let her know Mom was getting some back support, and he hoped she'd share the windfall with the kids.

Daughter feels she should be entitled to money since it comes from back support, and besides Mom should be willing to give her money when she needs it. Judge tries to explain the $4,000 from Dad is not child support, but is repayment of money Mom spent years ago to support daughter and her siblings. Daughter dances around question of whether it was a loan or gift.

So if Dad had been living with them the whole time, and contributing to the household/putting money in the family bank account, when Mom got around to lending the $3K, daughter should still be entitled?  Pul-eeze (not you, SRTouch, but daughter), give me a break.  And then she denies her children the right to see their grandmother because she is mad at being asked to pay what she owes.  Another one who thinks being asked to pay what she owes is harassment.

[AngelaHunter]

Daughter has terrible credit, but good job.

 

She works at a school, but not as a teacher - not with that terrible grammar. What kind of "good" job could she have at a school that allows for FOUR kids? These days, even couples who both work at good jobs would be strapped with all those kids. But, well, mom had four kids too so maybe it's a family tradition.

 

As for the broken TV; with all that weight being thrown around as Momma and daughter have a "physical altercation" (I always wonder when I see adults who have so little control over their behavior and temper what all these little kids they spawned endure) who knows what happened to it.

[SRTouch]

So if Dad had been living with them the whole time, and contributing to the household/putting money in the family bank account, when Mom got around to lending the $3K, daughter should still be entitled?  Pul-eeze (not you, SRTouch, but daughter), give me a break.  And then she denies her children the right to see their grandmother because she is mad at being asked to pay what she owes.  Another one who thinks being asked to pay what she owes is harassment.

Some seem to feel that are entitled to sponge from parents forever. JJ had recent case where a mother was suing her son. Son claimed to own tattoo palor, was covered in tats, and claimed to be grossing something like $5,000 monthly. Mom says she gave son a couple grand for a car, and when she gets car it's titled in DIL name. After a couple months there's a fight and son has car repo'ed, even though mom paid for it. Mom wants money back, since he took car. Son insists car was never Mom's, says Mom gives him money every year from tax refund.

[WhitneyWhit]

She works at a school, but not as a teacher - not with that terrible grammar. What kind of "good" job could she have at a school that allows for FOUR kids? These days, even couples who both work at good jobs would be strapped with all those kids. But, well, mom had four kids too so maybe it's a family tradition.

 

As for the broken TV; with all that weight being thrown around as Momma and daughter have a "physical altercation" (I always wonder when I see adults who have so little control over their behavior and temper what all these little kids they spawned endure) who knows what happened to it.

I've often wondered this myself, so many of the litigants on this show go from 0 to whoopin' ass in about 60 seconds.

 

The daughter really pissed me off when she said the gifts for her kids came from the Dollar Tree; well, Princess, maybe your mother could have bought nicer gifts if you had paid back the money you owed her.

[SRTouch]

The daughter really pissed me off when she said the gifts for her kids came from the Dollar Tree; well, Princess, maybe your mother could have bought nicer gifts if you had paid back the money you owed her.

I had forgotten that comment. When I heard it, I thought to myself that if daughter shopped at Dollar Tree her credit might not be so bad.

Really, though, with 4 kids I understand she might have trouble, even with what Mom considers a good job. I never heard any mention of her having a husband, or baby daddy (s?) paying support for her 4. Maybe she can get her next loan from deadbeat Dad - Mom might have cut her off.

[rcc]

The first case has an angry JM at the very end when the plaintiff says "this is bullshit" (we don't hear it but can tell what he said). This jerk buys an iPhone on ebay from the defendent but it turns out it is a stolen phone and is blacklisted by T Mobile. The plaintiff then gives a company $100 to unblock it. He tells JM that it was $300. Then to top it all off they made a side deal to cheat ebay out of its fee. The plaintiff didn't even bring the phone into court. He was as sleazy as they come.

 

Second case was a dog attacking another dog. English wasn't the plaintiff's first language and the arrogant defendent made that part of the case when he told her "speak English before suing me."

 

Last case was an 18 year old selling a motorbike to a 16 year old. The crankcase had a crack in it and he had tried to fix it with some kind of glue (they named the stuff but I can't remember). Oil was leaking anyway.

 

Pretty good episode today.

[WhitneyWhit]

The first case has an angry JM at the very end when the plaintiff says "this is bullshit" (we don't hear it but can tell what he said). This jerk buys an iPhone on ebay from the defendent but it turns out it is a stolen phone and is blacklisted by T Mobile. The plaintiff then gives a company $100 to unblock it. He tells JM that it was $300. Then to top it all off they made a side deal to cheat ebay out of its fee. The plaintiff didn't even bring the phone into court. He was as sleazy as they come.

 

Second case was a dog attacking another dog. English wasn't the plaintiff's first language and the arrogant defendent made that part of the case when he told her "speak English before suing me."

 

Last case was an 18 year old selling a motorbike to a 16 year old. The crankcase had a crack in it and he had tried to fix it with some kind of glue (they named the stuff but I can't remember). Oil was leaking anyway.

 

Pretty good episode today.

Just curious, but what time do you get your PC episode?

[rcc]

Just curious, but what time do you get your PC episode?

6 a.m. Hot Bench took over the old time slot in my area.

[SRTouch]

The first case has an angry JM at the very end when the plaintiff says "this is bullshit" (we don't hear it but can tell what he said). This jerk buys an iPhone on ebay from the defendent but it turns out it is a stolen phone and is blacklisted by T Mobile. The plaintiff then gives a company $100 to unblock it. He tells JM that it was $300. Then to top it all off they made a side deal to cheat ebay out of its fee. The plaintiff didn't even bring the phone into court. He was as sleazy as they come.

Indignant plaintiff can't understand why he would have to return the stolen property to get his money back. In the hallway he says he gave phone to nephew because all it's good for is to play games. Then Harvey tells us plaintiff did not return phone, so he doesn't get the $600.

Either the nephew REALLY likes to play games, lost it, or plaintiff had already sold it to someone else - my bet is he sold it.

Second case was a dog attacking another dog. English wasn't the plaintiff's first language and the arrogant defendent made that part of the case when he told her "speak English before suing me."

Yet another case when whole thing could have been avoided with better trained dogs which were under control of owners. Plaintiff's dog was on lease, but the dog walker was not in control of the dog. Defendent's dog may not have snapped first, but was the aggressor by trying to establish dominance. Doesn't really matter, like the judge said, the unleashed dog loses in the eyes of the law.

Last case was an 18 year old selling a motorbike to a 16 year old. The crankcase had a crack in it and he had tried to fix it with some kind of glue (they named the stuff but I can't remember). Oil was leaking anyway.

My opinion went back and forth, I was against whoever talked last, since nobody was making much sense. I understand ruling for the plaintiff, as a minor he can't enter a binding conflict. OTOH, I would have understood if the judge had ruled that since Dad was there, in fact actually negotiating the price, he was acting sort of like a co-owner.

[SRTouch]

Just curious, but what time do you get your PC episode?

DVR has changed how I view TV, I never watch when something first airs. Actually, so has my discovery of this forum. I used to save up several episodes before watching.

[AngelaHunter]

English wasn't the plaintiff's first language and the arrogant defendent made that part of the case when he told her "speak English before suing me."

 

Def was such  a smartassed little shit whose arrogance and smirking was so highly irritating that he deserved a severe tongue-lashing. As for plaintiff's English - it was much better than 90% of hte litigants we see here who were born and raised in an English-speaking environment. MUCH better. His dog instigated the fight, since the neck-over-the-shoulders thing and the stiffly wagging tail carried that high are dominance displays. But that doesn't matter since nothing would have happened had his dog not been running free.

 

Speaking of arrogant little shits: In the stolen phone case, the plaintiff was such an annoying little creep that I'm glad he got scammed. He expected to be reimbursed for what I'm sure was an illegal attempt to get the phone to work. I know nothing of these things, so perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm glad he walked away empty-handed. "This is bullshit." I only wish Douglas had been able to smack some respect into that twerp.

[cattykit]

 But that doesn't matter since nothing would have happened had his dog not been running free.

 

Speaking of arrogant little shits: In the stolen phone case, the plaintiff was such an annoying little creep that I'm glad he got scammed. He expected to be reimbursed for what I'm sure was an illegal attempt to get the phone to work. I know nothing of these things, so perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm glad he walked away empty-handed. "This is bullshit." I only wish Douglas had been able to smack some respect into that twerp.

The dog case felt like so much filler--it should have been settled in five seconds, starting with the video.  As soon as MM saw the defendant's dog off-leash, she could have ruled.  But then we wouldn't get all the drama and the xenophobic moment.

 

On the first case, I waited for MM to pull out her tried and true mantra, the cheap comes out expensive.  So you spend $300--so you claim--to salvage something you were trying to save $200 on.  Except, oh wait, you didn't actually spend $300.  I've bought and sold on ebay and one of the first things you learn or should learn is that not to buy electronics there, but if you really feel you have to, you complete the transaction through ebay and pay through their paypal link to get the protection.  There would have been zero financial incentive for the buyer to pay off-site, only for the seller, which should have been a really ginormous red flag to the buyer, but he was just too smart, right?  He was right about one thing--it was bullshit.  It's just that the bullshit was all on his side.

[DoctorK]

 

I know nothing of these things, so perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm glad he walked away empty-handed.

Totally agree. The defendant was a low life scammer/thief or at least a fence, but the plaintiff was so sleazy and obnoxious, I not only wanted him to lose, I wanted Byrd to come over from JJ to beat the crap out of him.

[WhitneyWhit]

In the phone case, I'm thinking the plaintiff didn't turn over the phone because he already sold it to someone else.

Edited January 30, 2016 by WhitneyWhit

[AngelaHunter]

I wanted Byrd to come over from JJ to beat the crap out of him.

 

Now that's a "crossover" I would so watch!

 

I'm thinking the (plaintiff) didn't turn over the phone because he already sold it to someone else.

 

That little bitch absolutely did that.

[AKA...CJ86]

I'm not sure why MM spent 20 minutes on him before finally telling him he had no case. Her advice to the defendant was right on. Unfortunately, the plaintiff is nuttier than a fruitcake. Right now he's focused on the car - MM had to keep telling today's case was not about the car. If the defendant gave him everything he claims she owes him, I suspect he'd just come up with something else.

In medical terms I'd says he's got LTS...

Looney Tunes Syndrome

 

I've re-watched the case a few times.

 

I kept thinking of that case from a few years ago where the woman, I believe the defendant, disappeared after her case/episode aired...with the plaintiff, her ex, as a potential suspect-IIRC.

 

If anything happened to this chick, we know who to look for. 

[teebax]

In the phone case, I'm thinking the plaintiff didn't turn over the phone because he already sold it to someone else.

Thirded (or fourthed.)

The reason he was so indignant was that he knew he couldn't return the phone. Also, the fact that he tried to get someone to turn on a blacklisted phone shows me he didn't give a damn about the person from whom it was originally stolen. As long as the phone worked, he was happy. Personally, I'd be horrified if I found out I'd purchased something that was stolen and would have made every effort to get it to its rightful owner.

[AngelaHunter]

As long as the phone worked, he was happy.

 

I wanted to slap that little bitch myself. He stood there like a little schoolgirl being reprimanded by the teacher when JM came back with the "What did you SAY??"  I hope everyone he knows jeers at him for making such an ass of himself.

[cattykit]

I actually upgraded my iphone 4S this morning to a 6S plus, and of course it put me in mind of this case, so I started talking to the T-mobile rep about it.  He said he sees a lot of that, where people try to bring back phones they didn't buy legitimately, activate service on stolen phones, etc., and in general try to game the system.

[rcc]

Today's first case had the plaintiff suing for $5,000 max because the defendent's dog got out of the broken gate and attacked her dog. The defendent had her service dog with her in court and proclaimed she wasn't liable for anything. She even countersued the plaintiff! The daughter even cried in the hallway with Curt who told them "you're in the wrong, don't you know that." I think they are the kind of people who make a habit of always being the victim.

The second case had the slick talking and well dressed plaintiff suing the mechanic for damaging the hood of his car when it was in for a water pump replacement. He still owed the mechanic $100 and instead of paying up he decides to go on the People's Court for a lousy $100 saying his hood was damaged. He might have looked legit but I think he wanted to get over on the defendent. Looks can be deceiving in this case.

The last case was the cheapskate defendent landlord who rented an apartment to the plaintiff's daughter. The light fixture consisted of a lightbulb hanging in the middle of the room. The plaintiff installed track lighting and offered to leave it there if the landlord would give him some money for it. The cheapskate says since he hadn't raised the rent in 4 years then he should leave it there. Instead he says he hired an electrician to fix the holes that the lighting made when the plaintiff took it with him. Now, I'm not a landlord but I would have left it there and paid the amount. It did make the place look much better. But, no, he even charged the plaintiff 59 cents for a switchplate. I wouldn't have rented it with that so called lighting in the first place. It goes to show how cheap that landlord was, big businessman that he was.

[DebbieW]

If the illiterate mom with the furniture problem would have been on Judge Mathis, he would have offered to hook her up with adult literacy/ELL services. I know it's not exactly the job of a judge to recommend services, but, jeez, JMM pretty much pretended she didn't hear it. I work in the literacy profession and, with adults, the most difficult part is getting them to share that they are illiterate. Well, the cat was out of the bag in the courtroom...it's a shame JMM didn't take that opportunity. I always admire Judge Mathis for hooking litigants up with rehab stays, college scholarships, etc. He's not showy about it; he seems to be interested in helping people improve their lives.

I agree that it would have been nice if MM had offered help with obtaining services, but I completely disagree with how she ruled on the case.  While the furniture guy should be made to replace the furniture when the drawers wouldn't close properly and the twin beds that were not what the plaintiff ordered, I felt it was wrong for her to have admonished the defendant for allowing the plaintiff to purchase exactly what she wanted and, in fact, produced a picture of.  How is it his problem that she's illiterate? Is he supposed to administer a standardized test before making the sale?  If this becomes a valid reason for suing (He took advantage of the fact that I'm illiterate) business owners are really screwed.  I don't understand the first thing about cars making me, in my opinion, car illiterate.  Does that mean that I can undo an "as is" sale because I didn't understand that the transmission needed replacing?

[SRTouch]

Today's first case had the plaintiff suing for $5,000 max because the defendent's dog got out of the broken gate and attacked her dog. The defendent had her service dog with her in court and proclaimed she wasn't liable for anything. She even countersued the plaintiff!

Defendant's 2 unleashed, out of control dogs left their property to attack plaintiff's leased dog on public property. Duh, wonder who should pay plaintiff's vet bills? Countersuit for $75 medical bill and $4,925 for pain and suffering because plaintiff's dog bit defendant's finger. Even after ruling, defendant doesn'the accept any responsibility.

The second case had the slick talking and well dressed plaintiff suing the mechanic for damaging the hood of his car when it was in for a water pump replacement. He still owed the mechanic $100 and instead of paying up he decides to go on the People's Court for a lousy $100 saying his hood was damaged. He might have looked legit but I think he wanted to get over on the defendent.

Another case which should be settled in under a minute. Plaintiff claims car damaged at defendant's shop, but days go by after he picks up car before he notices damage. Too bad there was no countersuit, since plaintiff admitted owing money, but with no countersuit MM couldn't make him pay.

The last case was the cheapskate defendent landlord who rented an apartment to the plaintiff's daughter.

have to wonder what all went on when lease ended. Plaintiff said in hall the landlord didn't fix things, implying they had to do maintenance he should have. He should have known he had to either leave fixtures in place, or reinstall originals. I think it was totally unrealistic to expect landlord to pay him.

The way landlord said the other 3 tenants didn't have a problem with his withholding part of security made me wonder what total he withheld. After 4 years, I'm sure place needed paint & carpet (probably replacement depending on how old it was when girls moved in), but that would be on owner not tenants.

[rcc]

Today we get Harvey and his TMZ tour bus again. I wonder if he charges them more if they get on television commenting on The People's Court. LOL

 

The first case was the rapper saying that they bought a speaker from the defendent's store for $398. They sue for $5,000 for pain and suffering because the woman had a "little heart attack" and had to see her doctor because this stressed her out. The receipt says no refunds, store credit only. But what happened is he said they couldn't find a truck, she says the truck was too expensive. Not getting their story straight. Then someone with the receipt went to the store and picked up the speaker. The plaintiffs said they know nothing about this. JM ruled wrong in this case IMO. At least they didn't get pain and suffering. Oh, and the plaintiff was wearing a cross around his neck. I guess he must be a religious rapper! 

 

The next case is a sou-sou case. The Caribbean islands use this process to save money. People put money into a pot and someone wins the payout. The defendent won twice then didn't want to put her share in anymore.

 

Last case was the plaintiff renting out her place temporarily while she was out of the country. But the place had a vermin problem. 

[how55]

Love those sou-sou cases. Hope they are understandable enough or provide closed captioning. 

In yesterday's landlord-college students case, the father kept injecting a phrase like "basically" or "know what I'm saying" that was getting on my last nerve. Fortunately, it slipped out of my brain, so i don't remember it. 

[SRTouch]

The first case was the rapper saying that they bought a speaker from the defendent's store for $398.... JM ruled wrong in this case IMO.

I found both sides lacking credibility, and for that reason don't believe plaintiff's proved their case. Glad to hear defendant changed procedures so it won't happen in future.

The next case is a sou-sou case. The Caribbean islands use this process to save money. People put money into a pot and someone wins the payout. The defendent won twice then didn't want to put her share in anymore.

 

Ah educational TV. I'd never heard of a sou-sou, so when the case started I was thinking it was some type of pyramid scheme, where the 'banker' made a little from each pot. Once I heard the actual setup, it became a case of the defendant not living up to a verbal contract.

Last case was the plaintiff renting out her place temporarily while she was out of the country. But the place had a vermin problem.

I agreed with MM on this one. I can see the construction causing the rodents to move into the house. The neighbor/property manager was right there to set traps, but $2,000 for a short stay should equate to a rodent free house.

[zillabreeze]

 

The defendent had her service dog with her in court and proclaimed she wasn't liable for anything

The whole "service dog" thing is getting out of hand.  It's a few bucks and registry on a website.  Nothing really has to be proven.

 

So as the massive defendant is listing all of the house cleaning, yard cleaning and dog washing she had been doing that day, MM called her on it.  "YOU were able to do all those things?" she asked trying to choke back sarcasm.  Come to find out all she had done was sit around and tell the granddaughter what to do.  

[BubblingKettle]

I like how the "rapper" was getting the speakers so he could bust his rhymes about anti-bullying....and then his wife went to the store and gave the guy a verbal smackdown. Chest pains, my ass. 

 

The susu sounds like a recipe for disaster.

 

I was annoyed with the attitude of certainty the defendants had in the Boston rat case. They were so sure that it was a 'one and done' problem. No, rats/mice often bring friends! They were trying to minimize everything... "eh, they saw a rat, we put out some poison, it died, BFD." And the defendant claimed this could easily happen at a top-rated hotel. Well, God HELP that hotel if I ever have a rodent visit my room.

[cattykit]

Sou-sou is new-new to me too-too.

 

I don't believe the stereo buyers, but I think the store owner's language barrier hurt him with MM.  When he paused to consider his answer, it seemed to me like he was trying to make sure he understood the question before answering, and MM took it as evidence of deviousness.  They never explained fully how someone who wasn't part of the sale managed to have a copy of the receipt.  If the person had the receipt, showing ID wouldn't have helped anyway, as they could easily say they were a friend or a relative picking it up for the couple.  I wish MM had ruled for the owner.

 

OTOH, I ordered a 25 cent flooring sample from Lowe's--27 cents with tax--and I had to show my DL plus the online receipt to pick it up.

 

If I had to be on the Levinbus, I'd be the skeletonized fossil they would find at the end of the ride because I would have had to kill myself in the first five minutes.

Edited February 2, 2016 by cattykit

[SRTouch]

The whole "service dog" thing is getting out of hand.  It's a few bucks and registry on a website.  Nothing really has to be proven....

 

I've heard this before, but just for laughs I just googled "service dogs" Yep, found multiple sites offering to register any dog, no proof of training required. Looks like the basic package is $59, nice service dog vest is optional.

"INSTANT SERVICE DOG REGISTRY" at https://www.officialservicedogregistry.com/register-your-dog/?gclid=Cj0KEQiAxMG1BRDFmu3P3qjwmeMBEiQAEzSDLl5qMoLqH6aPs-ongkmI97CBIwugjShaOItC-E2pHS0aApTc8P8HAQ

A couple quotes from site:

"Federal Law Prohibits Discrimination Of Breed,Size,Training Level Or Age Of Any Emotional Support Or Service Dog, Emotional support dogs do not have to be trained to perform any specific task. Service dogs can be trained by their owners or in any other manner the owner desires.

People With Service Animals Must Be Allowed Access To All Public Accommodations. This right takes precedence over all state and local laws which might otherwise prohibit animals in those places such as Stores, Malls, Restaurants, Hotels/Resorts, Airlines,Cruises, Taxi cabs, Buses just to name a few."

I'm thinking I might register one of my cats. GG is already leash trained, so he's probably better trained than some of the "service dogs" running around.

[Rick Kitchen]

The whole "service dog" thing is getting out of hand.  It's a few bucks and registry on a website.  Nothing really has to be proven.

 

So as the massive defendant is listing all of the house cleaning, yard cleaning and dog washing she had been doing that day, MM called her on it.  "YOU were able to do all those things?" she asked trying to choke back sarcasm.  Come to find out all she had done was sit around and tell the granddaughter what to do.  

 

Defendant had to be met sitting down in the courtroom because she was too handicapped to walk into the courtroom, but she was able to walk out.

[rcc]

Today's first case had a new angle. The woman's husband died and she decided to take a few months off to visit her mother in another state. Her niece who had a key then rented out rooms in the house month to month without anyone's knowledge. When the woman's son went to the house to move in with his family he found the renters there. JM couldn't believe the hubris of the niece, she's nowhere to be found either. Took the money and ran. The plaintiff is suing the son for storage fees, ruined food because the electric had been shut off by the town due to water damage. The plaintiff didn't pay rent for months and the daughter has asthma but they couldn't find new housing because of all their cats. They had to be served eviction notice to get them out. Mold damage and other damage now has to be repaired because of the niece's actions. She should be in jail.

 

Next case had the kids playing in the street and one was hurled into the plaintiff's car and it was damaged.

 

The last case was shoddy workmanship by the plaintiff and he still sued to get paid.

[zillabreeze]

 

daughter has asthma but they couldn't find new housing because of all their cats

Am I the only one to find this absurd?  Houseful of cats + child with asthma= gee, what could possibly be a problem?

[WhitneyWhit]

The entire time I was watching the first case I kept wondering why no one was bringing up the fact that it was an illegal rental. The niece didn't own the house and didn't have permission to rent the place.

[rcc]

The entire time I was watching the first case I kept wondering why no one was bringing up the fact that it was an illegal rental. The niece didn't own the house and didn't have permission to rent the place.

I know it. If they don't know where she is, then the police will have to find her because it is a criminal case.

[teebax]

Sou-sou is new-new to me too-too.

 

I don't believe the stereo buyers, but I think the store owner's language barrier hurt him with MM.  When he paused to consider his answer, it seemed to me like he was trying to make sure he understood the question before answering, and MM took it as evidence of deviousness.  They never explained fully how someone who wasn't part of the sale managed to have a copy of the receipt.  If the person had the receipt, showing ID wouldn't have helped anyway, as they could easily say they were a friend or a relative picking it up for the couple.  I wish MM had ruled for the owner.

 

OTOH, I ordered a 25 cent flooring sample from Lowe's--27 cents with tax--and I had to show my DL plus the online receipt to pick it up.

 

I was surprised that MM seemed to act like she'd never heard of a sou-sou. I only know about them from another case that involved one. But then MM went on to say that they are legal, so she obviously had heard of them. It was just strange to me.

 

I believed the speaker litigants after seeing the video. Yes, the female plaintiff went off on them; I'd have had a similar reaction if I'd purchased something and then found it it was given to someone else. And I didn't believe that the person picking up the speaker showed a receipt. I think the defendant thought that all tall black guys look alike and turned it over without proof. As someone else said, it's hard to pick up anything you've ordered without proof, so it's a good thing they've changed their store policy about that.

 

All of that being said, I have to question the plaintiffs' priorities. If you can't afford a rental truck for a day (isn't it like $30?) why are you spending $400 on a speaker. It's none of my business how people spend their money, but it seems like a better plan would have been to ascertain the cost of the truck rental and factor that in when making the purchase in the first place. Maybe it's just me...

 

 

Defendant had to be met sitting down in the courtroom because she was too handicapped to walk into the courtroom, but she was able to walk out.

I probably shouldn't say it, but I was thinking that she probably wouldn't have so many health problems if she weren't so big. She was really large. Of course, her size could have been because of her health issues, but I also had a hard time believing she was doing all the work she claimed to be doing.

[SRTouch]

Today's first case had a new angle. The woman's husband died and she decided to take a few months off to visit her mother in another state. Her niece who had a key then rented out rooms in the house month to month without anyone's knowledge. When the woman's son went to the house to move in with his family he found the renters there. JM couldn't believe the hubris of the niece, she's nowhere to be found either. Took the money and ran. The plaintiff is suing the son for storage fees, ruined food because the electric had been shut off by the town due to water damage. The plaintiff didn't pay rent for months and the daughter has asthma but they couldn't find new housing because of all their cats. They had to be served eviction notice to get them out. Mold damage and other damage now has to be repaired because of the niece's actions. She should be in jail.

Plaintiff sues because ... I'm not sure why. She has a month to month rental, is given notice in May, still there beginning of July and finally moves just before final eviction notice. She wants to be paid for having to move two months after being given notice. Sorry, 30 days is all that's needed when it's month to month. No telling what caused flood. Plaintiff says defendant did it to drive her out, defendant has picture of broken pipe he says was in her apartment. I'm not buying that defendant was willing to cause thousands in damage to get plaintiff out faster. Only possible case she has would be against city inspector who ordered electricity turned off, or the niece who illegally leased apartment. BTW, inspector turned off electricity, at least in part, because plaintiff's many extension cords were deemed unsafe.

Criminal case should be brought against niece who illegally rented rooms and kept money. Niece currently in the wind - I'll hazard a guess there's drugs involved.

Next case had the kids playing in the street and one was hurled into the plaintiff's car and it was damaged.

Another case which should never have seen the light of day. Two kids playing, and totally by accident cause property damage. Parents of both kids should have immediately accepted responsibility and split cost to repair car. Instead, plaintiff sues one kid, and other kid is plaintiff's witness. In the hallway, still nothing from the plaintiff's witnesses about accepting their portion of cost - probably because, as everyone knows, defendant isn't out any money.

And, let me just say that if the car had not been made of aluminum foil it would not have been damaged - I miss the days when cars were solid.

[BubblingKettle]

And, let me just say that if the car had not been made of aluminum foil it would not have been damaged - I miss the days when cars were solid.

True, but are those girls completely unaware of their SIZE? I don't even know how the two girls, who are bigger than some adults, were "swinging each other around" by the arms. Those two shouldn't have been testing the laws of physics when they were so close to a car.

[DoctorK]

 

If you can't afford a rental truck for a day (isn't it like $30?) why are you spending $400 on a speaker

I was thinking that also. It isn't like they didn't know how big the car they were driving was compared to the speaker. I wonder if this may have been some hair brained (or perhaps hare brained?) money making plan, something like "Speakers-to-Go".

Edited February 3, 2016 by DoctorK

[AngelaHunter]

While watching today's three cases what struck me most is that not one person in any of them could speak the most basic English properly. I guess I should just get over it.

[cattykit]

Another case which should never have seen the light of day. Two kids playing, and totally by accident cause property damage. Parents of both kids should have immediately accepted responsibility and split cost to repair car. Instead, plaintiff sues one kid, and other kid is plaintiff's witness. In the hallway, still nothing from the plaintiff's witnesses about accepting their portion of cost - probably because, as everyone knows, defendant isn't out any money.

I don't know why MM couldn't have applied a standard of comparative negligence and cut the judgment in half instead of telling the 14 year old defendant that she would have to sue back to get the other half of the judgment.

[rcc]

The cases today weren't too interesting IMO. The first case about the jetski did have an altercation in the parking lot and the defendent yells "Take me to People's Court." JM got a kick out of that one. So did I. LOL

 

Second case involved a pool. Last case was a friend loaning money and wanted to be repaid.

[SRTouch]

The cases today weren't too interesting IMO. The first case about the jetski did have an altercation in the parking lot and the defendent yells "Take me to People's Court." JM got a kick out of that one. So did I. LOL

I didn't trust smug plaintiff's pictures, so think MM should have made call to see what mechanic had to say. Now, if MM had called and the mechanic said the carb had not been rebuilt after defendant testified they had, well, case closed.

Wonder what was on back of defendants' shirts. They showed the company logo on the front, but blurred the back... maybe had address/phone number on back.

 

Second case involved a pool.

Loved the defendant's final comment in the hall. From now on he plans to spend 1 hour installing pool and 10 hours writing contract

[AKA...CJ86]

Last case was a friend loaning money and wanted to be repaid.

 

Did it have the usual...friend asking for money back = threatening my laugh, abuse and harassment?

[rcc]

Did it have the usual...friend asking for money back = threatening my laugh, abuse and harassment?

It did have a twist. The husband was supposed to pay the entire amount, or so she says, but only paid $150. They are now divorced.