The People's Court - General Discussion

[silverspoons]

I have been watching since I was a kid with my mom. I used to live in NE/NY and I love the diversity in the cases MM sees from a rich CT businessman suing over a boat he bought to someone from Queens suing a neighborhood dry cleaner. I dislike how many court shows are fake these days. I took me forever to convince my mom judge Ross America's court was fake. Is there a list of which shows are fake and which are real. My mom and I are disputing over if judge Faith is real? The only shows that seem real are People's Court, Judge Mathis and Judge Judy.

[marny]

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.

 

You can't use comparative negligence here because the plaintiff who was suing was not herself negligent-- her daughter was.  You can't hold the plaintiff responsible for the negligence of her daughter, just like the judge couldn't hold the defendant mother responsible for the negligence of the defendant daughter.  

[SRTouch]

I have been watching since I was a kid with my mom. I used to live in NE/NY and I love the diversity in the cases MM sees from a rich CT businessman suing over a boat he bought to someone from Queens suing a neighborhood dry cleaner. I dislike how many court shows are fake these days. I took me forever to convince my mom judge Ross America's court was fake. Is there a list of which shows are fake and which are real. My mom and I are disputing over if judge Faith is real? The only shows that seem real are People's Court, Judge Mathis and Judge Judy.

Check

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_court_shows

Whether the show is real or fake sort of depends on just how real you want. Some folks argue they're fake when the case is heard in a simulated court room with paid extras sitting in the audience. IMHO, that's ok, as long as the case is real and settled by binding arbitration. Once they start hiring actors as litigants and scripting the case, they've crossed the line and I label them fake.

[NYGirl]

You could definitely tell Judge Ross is fake.  The litigants overact so much that they make it so obvious.  I think Judge Faith is real.  I know Hot Bench is too.

[Rick Kitchen]

Man, that PoS pool guy who called MM out saying a good judge would let him win the case without providing evidence.  I was glad she found a way to rule against him.

[rcc]

Today's cases were a couple no longer dating suing for a trip, utilities, and everything else they could think of. The defendent came off to me as an opportunist and he came off as a sad sack who was lonely and wants a relationship. IMO she wasn't all that but she sure thinks she is.

 

Second case was the hotshot defendent backing into the plaintiff's car but only wanted to pay a couple of hundred dollars for a "scratch." This case definitely should have had a police report since the defendent was an arrogant SOB and the plaintiff expected to be treated fairly. Welcome to the world in 2016.

 

Last case was a dog attack case and of course the defendent didn't want to pay up.

[zillabreeze]

Once they start hiring actors as litigants and scripting the case, they've crossed the line and I label them fake.

 

Ross has a disclaimer that rolls real fast during credits.  Something about participants being paid, names changed, etc.  I thought Ross was the worst of the crap court shows, but that Christina Perez is dumber than a box of hammers.

[SRTouch]

hotshot defendent backing into the plaintiff's car but only wanted to pay a couple of hundred dollars for a "scratch." This case definitely should have had a police report since the defendent was an arrogant SOB and the plaintiff expected to be treated fairly. Welcome to the world in 2016.

Plaintiff will take the money and run. He's been driving around for 6 months with damage, now suing because defendant added a small dent/scratch to already damaged panel. OTOH, defendant did damage it, so should pay something, so guess decision makes sense.

Last case was a dog attack case and of course the defendent didn't want to pay up

Don't know what defendants were thinking. They figured out that when there's a fight between a leashed vs unleashed dog, the unleashed dog pays 99.999% of the time. In the intro they say no fight, just 2 dogs sniffing. Then there was a fight, but the plaintiff switched dogs, so the bill is for some other dog. None of their stories make sense. I really need to stop watching dog cases, since I almost always end up mad at the irresponsible owners.

[rcc]

Ross has a disclaimer that rolls real fast during credits.  Something about participants being paid, names changed, etc.  I thought Ross was the worst of the crap court shows, but that Christina Perez is dumber than a box of hammers.

I've never even heard of that show and never seen Perez either. I'll stick to JJ and JM. That's enough for me.

Edited February 5, 2016 by rcc

[SRTouch]

Ross has a disclaimer that rolls real fast during credits.  Something about participants being paid, names changed, etc.  I thought Ross was the worst of the crap court shows, but that Christina Perez is dumber than a box of hammers.

Yeah, they admit that Christina Perez' cases are are scripted reenactments with paid actors. I guess her claim to fame is that she was the first bilingual show, and her show won awards on the Spanish channel, Telemundo. Maybe the Spanish actors were better, but in the English version the acting is REALLY bad.

[cattykit]

I've never even heard of that show and never seen Perez either. I'll stick to JJ and JM. That's enough for me.

I've never heard of them either.

 

As for JJ, I have tried off and on to watch her, and I know she is immensely popular, but for me she is unwatchable.  She seems like she has contempt for everyone in the room except maybe Byrd, which can be exhausting to watch, and she decides cases based on what she feels, rather than consulting or following the law or even logic.  Not to mention I don't think I've ever seen her express an iota of compassion and some people deserve it.  I'll stick with MM.

[BubblingKettle]

Second case was the hotshot defendent backing into the plaintiff's car but only wanted to pay a couple of hundred dollars for a "scratch." This case definitely should have had a police report since the defendent was an arrogant SOB and the plaintiff expected to be treated fairly. Welcome to the world in 2016.

That defendant was so damn smug....even his eyebrows displayed his smugness. The plaintiff looked so familiar to me.  Maybe he's a look-alike of an 80's celeb, or maybe he spends winters in FL and I've seen him in real life.

 

Omg, the brown/black vs. tan/black defendants....what stubborn idiots.

 

I hate to say it, but I'm less annoyed by the people on the TMZ Short Bus.  They seem to be more prepared/willing to give answers, and they seem to be able to understand English. I wonder if the tour company's ticket for the Harvey/TPC Experience costs more.

[rcc]

I've never heard of them either.

 

As for JJ, I have tried off and on to watch her, and I know she is immensely popular, but for me she is unwatchable.  She seems like she has contempt for everyone in the room except maybe Byrd, which can be exhausting to watch, and she decides cases based on what she feels, rather than consulting or following the law or even logic.  Not to mention I don't think I've ever seen her express an iota of compassion and some people deserve it.  I'll stick with MM.

I agree JJ is not the most compassionate person out there but yesterday she berated a defendent and I couldn't believe it. It was a dog attack case and the plaintiff was injured along with her dog. The defendent laughed when JJ ruled in the plaintiff's favor and awarded her the max $5,000. The defendent laughed again after the verdict. It was obvious she couldn't care less that they got hurt. I thought of JM and was surprised that JJ had the same reaction that JM would have had.

[AngelaHunter]

TMZ Short Bus.  <> I wonder if the tour company's ticket for the Harvey/TPC Experience costs more.

 

OMG, I came here to post the very same thing - TMZ Short Bus!

 

As for the "Harvey Experience" costing more? Imagine you're taking a nice bus tour somewhere. The bus stops and you see that creepy shyster scuttling on board, mic in hand and heading for YOU? Truly the stuff of nightmares, "I'm telling you!"

[SRTouch]

As for JJ, I have tried off and on to watch her, and I know she is immensely popular, but for me she is unwatchable. She seems like she has contempt for everyone in the room except maybe Byrd, which can be exhausting to watch, and she decides cases based on what she feels, rather than consulting or following the law or even logic. Not to mention I don't think I've ever seen her express an iota of compassion and some people deserve it. I'll stick with MM.

I watch JJ and MM, and prefer MM. My problem with JJ is that she often seems to already have her mind made up before testimony begins. With her mind already made up, sometimes I'm left wondering why she made her decision, or what she read in the statement that made her so hostile to a litigant. Another problem is that she's out of touch with many working class people. More than once she'll decide someone is lying because in her world no one acts a certain way, and I'm thinking of several people I know who DO act that way. Edited February 6, 2016 by SRTouch

[seacliffsal]

I can't believe how much free advertising they are giving the TMZ tour. I actually think all the bus riders work for TMZ and are doing this for the advertising. I think I even saw the same (smug) man on two different days sitting in two different places. Why would someone pay for a tour and be satisfied sitting in one place away from everything of interest in order to be on t.v. for a couple of seconds? The background looks pretty desolate, not like they are in the middle of Hollywood or LA.

[AZChristian]

Some of the lesser members of the TMZ on-camera staff also work as guides on the bus tours.  Yes, I have done the tour (bows head in shame).  That may be why you saw the same guy twice.

[AngelaHunter]

I can't believe how much free advertising they are giving the TMZ tour.

 

But TMZ is Levin.

[SRTouch]

Three different cases today, brought by plaintiffs who come to court with no evidence. I felt sorry for first plaintiff, but no way she had a case. Second case was woman lying to get money back because she claimed defendant's exercise program hurt her already bad back. Third plaintiff had silliest case of all. Live in boyfriend and father of her baby moved out a year and a half ago. She wants him to pay for new engine for car he drove when they were together. She insists she had it serviced before he started driving it, and she hasn't driven it since he moved out 18 months ago. She says the check engine light came on when he was driving it, so it's his fault engine blew. MM didn't believe the car sat for 18 months, and plaintiff had zero proof. Problem is it that letting a car sit for 18 months could have caused the problem - it just isn't good for cars to sit. In hallway, plaintiff says her loss, despite fact she had zero evidence, just shows the justice system doesn't work.

[DoctorK]

SRTouch  - Nice summaries. I agree with you that the first plaintiff seemed to really believe what she was claiming, but she had no evidence, and the defendant jeweler seemd to do everything right, even bending his store rules trying to make her happy. The other two plaintiffs, just complete smug dishonest jerks. Two nuggets, the gym member, apparently as soon as she heard the verdict she yelled "Liar, liar, pants on fire" across the courtroom to the defendant - way to show that you really should have won. The final plaintiff in her hallterview about the justice system not working (yeah, lady, you really convinced me) looked like she was about to say that the justice system always favors men but bit her tongue, hesitated, then went to the justice system in general.

[AngelaHunter]

Interesting. We had three mature women, who appeared to possess at least normal intelligence. They all made choices all on their own and then when things went south decided that someone else should pay for them.

 

Jewelry lady with the rash: She came into some money that burned a hole in her pocket. Too bad that the salesman talked her into buying a bunch of stuff that I guess she didn't want but bought anyway. Maybe she broke out in a rash because spending all that money on luxuries stressed her out? Who knows? She claims it's fake gold and silver, but brings zero proof.  Case dismissed.

 

Exercise woman: I have back problems too. I've been to a physio on four separate occasions. Why? Because I keep hurting my back. I guess I should sue my physio for not permanently fixing my problem and guaranteeing it would never come back. Plaintiff here a pre-existing degenerative disc problem and  had such pain she couldn't put her feet on the floor, yet didn't bother going to a doctor or even an emergency room? Now she wants ALL her money back. Get outta here.

 

Third litigant (overly dramatic and sucking up to JM)I disliked the most. SHE decides to get preggo with some boyfriend who has no steady job. SHE wants to leave FL and go live with Mommy and Daddy in NY and drag boyfriend with her. SHE can't work due to above-mentionned preggo-ness and boyfriend (who thinks child support is buying diapers and stuff) drives her car to job Daddy got him. 2006 Cooper Mini blows up and a year and a half later, she sues him for it. Case definitely dismissed!

 

 

[cattykit]

Interesting. We had three mature women, who appeared to possess at least normal intelligence. They all made choices all on their own and then when things went south decided that someone else should pay for them.

 

Jewelry lady with the rash: She came into some money that burned a hole in her pocket. Too bad that the salesman talked her into buying a bunch of stuff that I guess she didn't want but bought anyway. Maybe she broke out in a rash because spending all that money on luxuries stressed her out? Who knows? She claims it's fake gold and silver, but brings zero proof.  Case dismissed.

 

Exercise woman: I have back problems too. I've been to a physio on four separate occasions. Why? Because I keep hurting my back. I guess I should sue my physio for not permanently fixing my problem and guaranteeing it would never come back. Plaintiff here a pre-existing degenerative disc problem and  had such pain she couldn't put her feet on the floor, yet didn't bother going to a doctor or even an emergency room? Now she wants ALL her money back. Get outta here.

 

Third litigant (overly dramatic and sucking up to JM)I disliked the most. SHE decides to get preggo with some boyfriend who has no steady job. SHE wants to leave FL and go live with Mommy and Daddy in NY and drag boyfriend with her. SHE can't work due to above-mentionned preggo-ness and boyfriend (who thinks child support is buying diapers and stuff) drives her car to job Daddy got him. 2006 Cooper Mini blows up and a year and a half later, she sues him for it. Case definitely dismissed!

I think first plaintiff tried to play the sweet LOL card.  She must be right because she's a sweet LOL against a mean money-grubbing store owner who tried to put something over on her.  Except that he was very professional and reasonable and didn't try to put anything over on her.  It's not his job to convince a customer who walks into the store that she shouldn't buy his wares.  You can't claim you have a rash that your doctor says is caused by an allergy to silver and gold and then claim the jewelry wasn't actually silver or gold. 

 

Second plaintiff, I can almost understand, and I'm not as hostile to her as MM was.  I've had long-standing back problems related to being a nurse, and I finally went to a chiropractor who proceeded not only not to fix my back, but to give me a new neck problem.  I felt something in my neck when he did his last treatment, but he insisted he did nothing, except from that day forward I had pain in my neck so bad it would wake me up, screaming, from a sound sleep, and it's still a problem 7 years later.  Of course the difference is I never went back and I've never let another chiropractor touch me.  The plaintiff would have been so much better served by getting some medical evidence and not just bringing in her complaint.  I couldn't stand the defendant's smirk which started from the second he walked into the courtroom, but I'm also curious about his 90 second training concept and I can't believe any gym would ever say it's impossible to be injured on equipment. 

[WhitneyWhit]

I did feel sorry for the first plaintiff; she clearly didn't understand that just because she had a bad side effect to the jewelry, doesn't mean there's something actually wrong with the jewelry.

 

The second plaintiff; as MM said, she was in such pain from the exercise, yet she kept re-upping, so who's to blame?

 

Third plaintiff; loved her rant about the justice system, yeah, justice tends to fall on the side of the defendant when the plaintiff is full of shit.

[AngelaHunter]

I finally went to a chiropractor who proceeded not only not to fix my back, but to give me a new neck problem.

 

This is why I go to a physiotherapist and not a chiro.

 

(Jewelry store owner) was very professional and reasonable and didn't try to put anything over on her.

 

Plus it was written everywhere that there are no cash refunds. Litigants here always seem to think they are exempt for any rules or laws that apply to the rest of us. "It wasn't fair," says lady who came with no proof or evidence of anything at all.

[zillabreeze]

 

I can't believe any gym would ever say it's impossible to be injured on equipment.

Not only that, but any gym I've ever been to has you sign disclaimers that you can get hurt and that they are in no way liable.

[teebax]

I did feel sorry for the first plaintiff; she clearly didn't understand that just because she had a bad side effect to the jewelry, doesn't mean there's something actually wrong with the jewelry.

 

The second plaintiff; as MM said, she was in such pain from the exercise, yet she kept re-upping, so who's to blame?

 

Third plaintiff; loved her rant about the justice system, yeah, justice tends to fall on the side of the defendant when the plaintiff is full of shit.

I don't know when it started, but there seems to be an overwhelming majority of people who think someone must be responsible for every single thing that happens to them. We see it over and over on these court shows; people have something unfortunate happen to them, and then they demand someone else pay for it. How you can live to be 66 without realizing you have a metal allergy is beyond me.

 

I also can't understand why it didn't dawn on her to have the jewelry tested to make sure it was real. I know if I break out from wearing a piece of jewelry it's usually because it's fake. I would have at least had it tested for that before marching to court. The defendant, I thought, was more than willing to make her happy, but nothing short of a full refund would have pleased her. I agreed with MM that she did have good taste in jewelry. I didn't see anything she purchased that I wouldn't have purchased for myself.

 

Her stubbornness during the hallterview was just sour grapes. She can use the gift certificates as gifts for other people. Why cut off her nose to spite her face? Not using them doesn't hurt the defendant in any way.

 

Regarding the idiot with the gym Groupon, my brother stopped offering Groupons for his restaurant because most of the customers who were using them were huge pains in the ass who ran his servers around and tipped really shitty. Yes, it brings people into your business, but if it's not the clientele you'd want, what's the point?

[SRTouch]

Regarding the idiot with the gym Groupon, my brother stopped offering Groupons for his restaurant because most of the customers who were using them were huge pains in the ass who ran his servers around and tipped really shitty. Yes, it brings people into your business, but if it's not the clientele you'd want, what's the point?

Just to add a little personal experience. I delivered pizza for awhile after I retired from the Army. Different stores have different ways of figuring a driver's pay. We made nothing hourly, it was strictly $2 per delivery plus percentage of order price plus the tip. So, on a slow night a driver could wait an hour or more between deliveries and lose money paying for gas if customers didn't tip. Some of the worst tippers use coupons, and the ABSOLUTE WORST were motel workers. They got a 50% discount on their order and weren't charged the delivery charge. So if they didn'the tip, it was money out of the driver's pocket. OTOH, some of the motel workers were great tippers, and they could steer customers our way.

[SRTouch]

1st case today is couple wanting their deposit back from wedding planner. They contracted with wedding planner first of year for a mid july wedding - but got nervous in the may-June time frame because nothing seemed to be getting done, still waiting for the invitations. Wedding planner told them not to worry, she just did a wedding and the bride at that wedding loved it and didn't see anything before wedding day. Unfortunately, turns out someone else was the wedding planner for that wedding. When the planner said she needed more money, the groom to be demanded to know where the $5,000 deposit had gone, and ultimately sued to get deposit back. Wedding planner came in with zero evidence, and tried to defend herself by mudslinging and doubletalk. Then, once MM got out a tablet and started asking where for the $5000 deposit went defendant didn't have any answers, and had to take a big drink of water. Defendant has to return deposit.

At one point MM asks bride to be if she can talk, since she was being so quiet. I got the feeling that once she got started in Spanish she would have lots to say.

2nd case is horse sale gone bad. Plaintiff sold horse, but when she delivered it defendant noticed problem with horse being lame. So, plaintiff puts on bill of sale that defendant could return horse if it doesn't get better after farrier puts on new shoes. Well, plaintiff sues, saying defendant took too long before telling her that horse wasn't improving - except that text messages from defendant saying horse wasn't getting better were going unanswered by plaintiff. Defendant not only wins case and gets her money back, but yahoo on the street tells us plaintiff abandoned horse, so defendant ends up with horse, too.

Last case plaintiff wants refund of deposit. Defendant hired off Angies List to repair 9 chairs. After plaintiff sees the botched repair job on the 1st chair, he cancels rest of order. Defendant says he already spent $500 on materials, so no refund. Of course defendant shows up with no evidence he ordered materials, so MM orders money refunded. Funny part is defendant argues he received total of $600, not $500. Plaintiff graciously says defendant can keep the $100 he never gave everyone him.

[cattykit]

How funny as I was just this second typing out my shock at not seeing a recap, and the site tells me there's a new reply, and now there's SRTouch's recap!

 

I was a little bemused by MM's outrage at the wedding planner bringing out embarrassing information about the plaintiff.  Like this show doesn't live on salacious unnecessary details, and like if it were a real issue, the editors could have cut it out.  But this is Levin's show.  The dirtier, the better.

[DoctorK]

Thanks for the recaps SRTouch. PC was pre-empted by local coverage (4 whole hours) of the Mobile Mardi Gras Parade. Looks like I didn't miss much.

[AngelaHunter]

Wedding planner: DId anyone notice the expressions on the people behind the def. as she was talking about the plaintiff's ejaculatory problems? Aside from that, plaintif bride-to-be may want to think hard about marrying a man who seems to be simmering with rage and does seem very controlling.

 

Horse case: I actually forced myself to watch a couple seconds of Levin the Shyster, because I was really hoping for that update, that the plaintiff didn't bother picking up the lame horse she peddled on FB. I'm not giving any genius awards to the def. for buying a horse without ever meeting him or checking him out, but she was trying to do the right thing for him, while the plaintiff couldn't care less what happened to him.

 

Plaintiff graciously says defendant can keep the $100 he never gave everyone him.

 

That was several kinds of awesome. Defendant probably never fixed anything in his life and was counting on the fact that people will hire or buy stuff from anyone online, as though the fact that someone advertises anywhere - FB or Angie's list , etc. - means they must be beyond reproach.

Edited February 9, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[rcc]

That was  terrible of the greedy plaintiff to sue the defendent who at least cared about the horse. I watched Harvey at the end too just so I could see if she picked up the horse. I wasn't surprised that after she "thought about it" she abandoned him. Money was all she was concerned about and she probably knew that the horse had issues but just wanted to dump him on someone.

[teebax]

Yep, I knew for sure that she wasn't going to pick up that horse. She was such a liar. I think the defendant knew it, too, but genuinely wanted to care for the poor, neglected horse.

The chair repair case reminded me of one we saw recently in which a woman taught herself to upholster furniture on Craigslist and, predictably, had no clue what she was doing.

[SRTouch]

We're back to another dog bite case with today's first case. In this case two dog owners allow their leashed dogs to greet and sniff each other, and a scuffle breaks out. Plaintiff gets bit when he tries to break up the fight. They disagree on which dog actually bit the guy, with defendant arguing plaintiff was bit by his own dog. Defendant tries to insist his dog is friendly, then it comes out that after this incident the dog bit a couple other people and was put down. Mealy mouth defendant tries to double talk his way out of responsibility, but ends up paying for plaintiff medical bill plus $1000 pain and suffering.

2nd case landlord suing his tenant. Tenant says they were best of friends as long as he was planning to buy place. Boring case - loud irritating defendant trying to talk over judge loses, then in hallway says he expected to lose. Best part of case is the girl in audience photobombing behind defendant. She caught my eye because of her eyes and open mouth really standing out because it looks like she fell asleep in a tanning bed.

3rd case deals with disappearing bond return. Long convoluted story, but MM ruled for defendant because plaintiff couldn't prove case. Seems like it case could have been thrown out on the old dirty hands theory, since they committed defrauded the bail bondsman.

Edited February 10, 2016 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

2nd case landlord suing his tenant.

 

 

The defendant looked like a sawed-off, over-aged and overly-tanned reject from that horrid show, "Gigolos." I bet he and Levin could be besties!

 

 

Best part of case is the girl in audience photobombing behind defendant. She caught my eye because of her eyes and open mouth really standing out because it looks like she fell asleep in a tanning bed.

 

That was amazing. I don't usually notice anyone in the audience, but the "Exorcist" faces she was pulling couldn't be ignored.

[cattykit]

I'm surprised at how much I disliked all three cases today.

 

If I never see another dog bite case again, I will die happy.  OTOH, every time I think of ending my life-long boycott on having a dog, I just need to watch a few dog bite cases. 

 

Best part of case is the girl in audience photobombing behind defendant. She caught my eye because of her eyes and open mouth really standing out because it looks like she fell asleep in a tanning bed.

I had to check the urban dictionary to find out what photobombing meant, but yes, indeed.  In case there was ever any doubt that these cases are not filmed in sequence (other than MM's ever changing jewelry and hairstyles), the fact that the orange guppy didn't make it to the other segments made it obvious.

 

 

The defendant looked like a sawed-off, over-aged and overly-tanned reject from that horrid show, "Gigolos." I bet he and Levin could be besties!

I remember that guy.  This defendant wasn't as leathery but just as orange.  The only thing he had going for him was that he didn't resemble a Creamsicle quite as much as the orange guppy behind him. 

[SRTouch]

I had to check the urban dictionary to find out what photobombing meant, but yes, indeed.  In case there was ever any doubt that these cases are not filmed in sequence (other than MM's ever changing jewelry and hairstyles), the fact that the orange guppy didn't make it to the other segments made it obvious.

Ah, you see that'she why I watch educational programs. The other day there was a whole segment on Worlds Dumbest about photobombing. (At least I think it was Worlds Dumbest - it was one of those shows I sometimes have on in the background for white noise.)

 

[teebax]

We're back to another dog bite case with today's first case. In this case two dog owners allow their leashed dogs to greet and sniff each other, and a scuffle breaks out. Plaintiff gets bit when he tries to break up the fight. They disagree on which dog actually bit the guy, with defendant arguing plaintiff was bit by his own dog. Defendant tries to insist his dog is friendly, then it comes out that after this incident the dog bit a couple other people and was put down. Mealy mouth defendant tries to double talk his way out of responsibility, but ends up paying for plaintiff medical bill plus $1000 pain and suffering.

2nd case landlord suing his tenant. Tenant says they were best of friends as long as he was planning to buy place. Boring case - loud irritating defendant trying to talk over judge loses, then in hallway says he expected to lose. Best part of case is the girl in audience photobombing behind defendant. She caught my eye because of her eyes and open mouth really standing out because it looks like she fell asleep in a tanning bed.

3rd case deals with disappearing bond return. Long convoluted story, but MM ruled for defendant because plaintiff couldn't prove case. Seems like it case could have been thrown out on the old dirty hands theory, since they committed defrauded the bail bondsman.

Thanks for the recap. I'm working an odd shift right now, so I have to be pickier about which shows I watch first on the dvr. It looks like I can save this episode for when I'm doing my chores this weekend!

[SRTouch]

Today's first case is some dude who signs up for an online course, quits, then sues to get a refund. Defendant is a "sweet talker" who says she is selling an accredited study program, which the average student uses for a year to prepare for pharmacy tech licensing test. Plaintiff admits he quit after taking 1 introductory lesson and test. He not only loses case and doesn't get a refund, he is ordered to pay for rest of the course.

Second is tenant suing landlord. Tenant was being evicted, and according to eviction papers had until the 10th to be gone. They were moving out, but not fast enough for the manager. Property manager went in on the third and threw away everything. Of course no recipes for anything tenant claimed was thrown away, but judge gave them a little something since the manager jumped the gun by a week. Of course landlord had a countersuit for damages and cleanup. Really the only good part of case was the landlord "My son threw my phone in the toilet" excuse for no pictures.

Third case, plaintiff giving away fridge and freezer and freezer door opens and bangs her car. Defendant, who is getting freezer for free, says plaintiff partially to blame because her son's didn't help. Defendant still trying to argue after ruling.

[AngelaHunter]

Today's first case is some dude who signs up for an online course, quits, then sues to get a refund.

 

I loved that case! A thirty-one year old man, who is too much of a lazy slacker to even attend online courses and who needs his daddy to fight off the big, bad scamming lady who sweet-talked him out of his money. So glad the plaintiff not only lost but had to pay the defendant. Yeah, as JM said - he shouldn't be dispensing drugs.

 

"My son threw my phone in the toilet" excuse for no pictures.

 

I think even I have heard that excuse before on this show. I can only imagine how many times JM has heard it. I wonder if the def., "Levin", is related to our beloved Harvey. I feel they'd have a bit in common.

[BubblingKettle]

Today's first case is some dude who signs up for an online course, quits, then sues to get a refund. Defendant is a "sweet talker" who says she is selling an accredited study program, which the average student uses for a year to prepare for pharmacy tech licensing test. Plaintiff admits he quit after taking 1 introductory lesson and test. He not only loses case and doesn't get a refund, he is ordered to pay for rest of the course.

The son gave some lame non-examples of the sweet-talking when Curt questioned him in the hallterview. "You'll do a good job. I'm sure you'll do great." That's generic encouragement, ya dope.

 

Really the only good part of case was the landlord "My son threw my phone in the toilet" excuse for no pictures.

 

I think even I have heard that excuse before on this show. I can only imagine how many times JM has heard it. 

Yes!  And the judge's face when he was saying it --- so funny. She clearly didn't want to hear it.

[SRTouch]

1st case is dog case - I got up late and hadn't finished my first cup of coffee, just not ready for dog owner dumbness. Nuff said, I muted it and waited for next case.

2nd case kind of interesting, since plaintiff only wants 1 cent. Plaintiff is receptionist at a business, and door to door salesman sells her dental whitening coupons. Plaintiff's boss convinces her coupon is a scam, so she puts stop payment on her check. But wait, coupon clearly says no refund - she initialed the no refund policy - so her account has been turned over to a collection agency. She's suing the collection agency for a penny, but really to get the court to rule the deal invalid. She loses case, says she might try out the whitening service since she has to pay for it.

Little aside, during street interview portion, Harvey picks woman wearing low cut top, then mentions he wants her to lean over to the mike more. Hmmm, could he have picked her hoping to peek down her top?

3rd case: roommate deal gone bad. Apartment hunting acquaintenances decide to go in together to rent an apartment. They collect the move in costs and give it to the broker, but they weren't fast enough so someone else gets the apartment. The defendant picks up the refund check and disappears instead of splitting the money. Plaintiff is suing to get back the $18 hundred plus he put into the pot to get into the apartment. Plaintiff has all the text messages from the apartment hunting, and when he was looking for defendant to get his money back. Of course defendant has a new phone, so no messages to refute plaintiff. Defendant has no defense, admits she was wrong, and says she's sorry in the hallway - but I noticed she never turned to the plaintiff and apologized.

Morale of the story, know people before you move in together. This wasn't bf/gf situation, just acquaintances going to live in separate bedrooms. Plaintiff should be thankful they lost the apartment and he never shared space with the defendant.

[rcc]

I doubt Harvey wanted a "peek down her top." He's gay.

[redlaces]

I doubt Harvey wanted a "peek down her top." He's gay.

 

Just because he's gay, doesn't mean he doesn't know how to get the shots for television. Like him or not, he is a PRO at this. He leaves his gayness on his yachts on international waters. Trust. 

[rcc]

Just because he's gay, doesn't mean he doesn't know how to get the shots for television. Like him or not, he is a PRO at this. He leaves his gayness on his yachts on international waters. Trust. 

The reason I said he was gay was that he wouldn't want to peek down her top. Now that you mention it getting a shot for television makes sense. He's always thinking that Harvey. LOL

[DoctorK]

 

Of course defendant has a new phone, so no messages to refute plaintiff

Actually, it was even worse. After the plaintiff said that he had text messages to her, she said directly and unambiguously that she has no text messages from him, and repeated it. Only after one of the judges pushed her did she come up with the lost phone excuse. Classic lying by omission from a lying stealing little snot. If you haven't noticed, I really despised her.

[cattykit]

OMG I absolutely floved MM reaming out the bitch defendant for stealing the deposit money from the plaintiff.  That was awesome, perfect MM.  I was waiting for her to explain how she didn't owe the money and MM flat out demanded to know and then told her she was a despicable human being.  And the text message thing was so lame.  You either transfer your information from your old phone, in which case it's on your new phone, or you still have the old phone with the texts still there.  Nobody just tosses their old phone and she didn't say she tossed it or traded it in anyway.

 

(I do think it's somewhat amusing that MM has gone in a relatively few years from being somewhat tech-clunky and having to explain Craig's List with every case to pretty much expecting every litigant to keep a text and photo file of their lives.  She always seems surprised when people communicate verbally via phone rather than keep a text trail.)

 

1st case is dog case - I got up late and hadn't finished my first cup of coffee, just not ready for dog owner dumbness. Nuff said, I muted it and waited for next case.

If it had been a cat, I couldn't have watched.  At least there were no pictures of the little furbaby (I don't think; I might have been distracted), but the plaintiff's pain was very real and hard to watch.

[WhitneyWhit]

Catching up on yesterday's episode and I can't believe that after the defendant's dogs killed another dog, he continues to let them roam free. What a dick. Someone should call animal control before the next victim is a human.

[zillabreeze]

 

Catching up on yesterday's episode and I can't believe that after the defendant's dogs killed another dog, he continues to let them roam free. What a dick. Someone should call animal control before the next victim is a human.

I instantly named him Jeffrey Dahmer in my head.  He had no empathy, no remorse and dead eyes.  In the hallterview he was saying sorry type words, but it came off like he was repeating what someone said he should say.  I got the feeling he truly couldn't comprehend that anything bad had happened.

[SRTouch]

Actually, it was even worse. After the plaintiff said that he had text messages to her, she said directly and unambiguously that she has no text messages from him, and repeated it. Only after one of the judges pushed her did she come up with the lost phone excuse. Classic lying by omission from a lying stealing little snot. If you haven't noticed, I really despised her.

The exchange about what she did with the money was another example of how bad a liar she is.

MM "what did you do with the money?"

Defendant "I saved it"

MM "Then you have the money to return today"

Defendant "no I don't have it today"

MM "then where is it?"

Defendant "ummmm"

Good grief, she really needs to take JJ's adage about 'when you tell the truth you don't need a good memory' to heart. Every time MM questioned a part of her story it fell apart. She was fleeing an abusive relationship - nope she was being evicted. She was couch surfing, living out of her car, staying at motels, but she was saving the dude's money and buying a new phone.