The People's Court - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

I couldn't watch yesterday. So there's cats AND dogs and toothlessness? Automatic "erase".

[cattykit]

I don't know what kind of pictures could show that the workers left too much snow on the roof.  There'd be no way to prove when those pictures were taken.  He would have had to be taking video of them working and then leaving.  But I know I've gotten frustrated when I'm paying a lot of money for a job and I see the worker  apparently lazing in the truck.  Doesn't change the reality of the case, though, and I think MM got it right.

 

I've seen the same furniture guy more than once on this show. You'd think he'd be embarrassed by now.

I thought he looked and sounded familiar, but I was attributing it to my own ethnocentricity...

 

I couldn't watch yesterday. So there's cats AND dogs and toothlessness? Automatic "erase".

Cats were from the day before.  Just the same, the producers need to start getting a little more creative in the cases they poach.

[AngelaHunter]

Next up is plaintiff suing shady furniture store for crappie furniture and not living up to 1 year warranty.

 

Finally got to see this. I don't think I've seen JM dislike a litigant as much as she did the plaintiff from the get-go. By the time plaintiff got to "Yes, I have the evidence. But not here," I was sure she'd get tossed. She's lucky the def sold her a floor model without informing her. Sadly for plaintiff, her huge bill for her emotional distress was discarded. Really, if I were her - a mature woman living with Mom and getting knocked up, I'd be more distressed about that than about sofa legs.

 

Final straw was plaintiff trying to say defendant offered a $250 refund, but MM found text message of plaintiff asking for $150.

 

"It went up." Funny how litigants seem to have a memory lapse when it comes to anything not in their favour. Lying to JM to try and bleed more money has never worked. I live in an area where a ton of snow and ice often accumulates on my roof. Going up there and removing it is a difficult and dangerous job, no matter the amount of time it takes. I've never hired someone to do it, but if I did, I'd expect to pay a goodly amount for it.

[DoctorK]

 

a mature woman living with Mom and getting knocked up, I'd be more distressed about that than about sofa legs.

Totally agree, her problems with her life are more substantial than poor quality furniture.

[rcc]

First case - "The Lion King and her cub" LOL Two women fighting over a man. Defendent has 8 kids, 3 living with the Lion King. JM says she should be caring about her kids rather than all the drama. The man tells JM he is "lovable." The case involves the women damaging each other's cars but not his. LOL That is if he even has one!

 

Ignorant litigants but the most interesting case! LOL

[SRTouch]

First case - "The Lion King and her cub" LOL Two women fighting over a man. Defendent has 8 kids, 3 living with the Lion King. JM says she should be caring about her kids rather than all the drama. The man tells JM he is "lovable." The case involves the women damaging each other's cars but not his. LOL That is if he even has one!

Ignorant litigants but the most interesting case! LOL

Like MM said, at first it's funny, but by the end it's just depressing.

Defendant has 8 kids by 8 different men. Plaintiff's witness is defendant's sister, and has custody of at least some of those kids. You would think defendant would be in almost daily contact with the sister who has custody of some of her children, but according to her own testimony there's been no contact for 2 years. Defendant stated that she wasn't the only one with multiple children with different fathers. Don't know if she was talking about her sister or plaintiff. Then we have the prince these two were fighting over. No telling on many kids he's fathered. Obviously family means nothing. The children will end up with the same family values.

Like MM said, depressing.

Edited February 29, 2016 by SRTouch

[SRTouch]

OK 2nd case is dog case --- I skipped it except for the hallterview. In the hall, the loser admitted to everything --- yes her dog got off lease, yes her dog bit the plaintiff's --- but noooo, it wasn't her responsibilty.

Last case is college student tenant suing landlord for deposit. Plaintiff says he's got video of how he left the apartment. Turns out his video shows dirty apartment (not trashed like we sometimes see, but dirty). When JM points out video shows apartment needs cleaning, he says video was from day before he moved out --- so what's the video supposed to show. Big chunk of the money landlord kept is for replacing 3 doors. He claims door was kicked open and jam broken - but of course has no pictures of door, nor an itemized statement of the repair. In text message plaintiff sort of admits a friend broke in, but in court he can't remember what he meant. End result, JM deals a little rough justice and makes landlord give back half of what plaintiff is asking.

[WhitneyWhit]

Trash, just plain trash, that's all those litigants were in the first case. And of course those two dumbass women will blame each other and put each other through hell, but not one of them will ever turn on the man who has caused all the trouble. The real tragedy in this is that those slagbeasts are responsible for children, including at least one daughter who is learning that a woman's value is wrapped up in a man, and that it's perfectly fine to act like a lunatic, as long as you get your man.

[BubblingKettle]

I am really tired of hearing JMM say, "it's not just for nasty pictures"  about cell phones. She feels the need to say it every damn time, no matter who the litigant is. I don't know if she says it to try to be funny or to embarrass litigants, but it rubs me the wrong way.

[AngelaHunter]

I am really tired of hearing JMM say, "it's not just for nasty pictures"  about cell phones.

 

Me too. Enough already, even though from what I see, she's right and that's what many people seem to use them for.

 

The producers really trolled the abyss for today's litigants.

 

The "Battle for Shumar" was not only depressing, it was disgusting and sordid. The only person who made any sense at all  was the plaintiff's witness, Tina Turner. Plaintiff's vocabulary could use a little enlarging, if she knows no words for certain body parts that aren't gutter talk. The defendant's "This is what he give me. That's all there is" x 4 had me questioning her mental capacity. But I guess I shouldn't expect much from someone who gets rid of her kids as a matter of course because she got a job. Doesn't everyone? I was surprised JM didn't break out her, "I need to go shower after meeting all of you." If it was ever called for, this was the occasion. Insteads of vandalizing cars and dying her hair burgundy, bitch needs to investigate the wonderful world of birth control.

 

Those low-class, trashy dog women? Another UGH! I bet they sit around, smoking and drinking all day, with nothing better to do than provoke each other to add a little drama to their dreary lives.

 

Landlord case. Plaintiff is a law student, making me tighten my resolve to never require the services of a lawyer.

[teebax]

I am really tired of hearing JMM say, "it's not just for nasty pictures"  about cell phones. She feels the need to say it every damn time, no matter who the litigant is. I don't know if she says it to try to be funny or to embarrass litigants, but it rubs me the wrong way.

She often repeats her favorite sayings. I've mentioned before how I would love for her to learn a new expression. Something that is funny once or twice is not funny the hundredth time I hear it.

To paraphrase another of her favorites, she should stick a fork in those expressions.

[SRTouch]

First case is "crazy black lady" suing noisy neighbor. Plaintiff wants to bring up 15 years worth of squabbles with defendant who shares interior wall in their apartments. A perfect example of why it's a good idea to meet the neighbors before you buy an apartment in a CO-OP.

2nd case is another neighbor suing neighbor. This time plaintiff suing her neighbor because she's not happy with the paint job he did on her house. The defendant claims 30 years painting experience, but he did a half a$$ed job. Plaintiff has pictures of paint chips left behind. Defendant admits leaving chips behind. He says it was lead paint, so I'm wondering if it shouldn't have been treated as hazardous waste - maybe I misunderstood, but it isn't worth hearing it a second time. Also, there's unpainted trim, and an area of a wall that needs a second coat. His excuse for not finishing - he ran out of paint and she was supposed to buy more, but never did. Plaintiff didn't have any estimates of what it would cost to finish job, so MM administers some rough justice and awards plaintiff $250.

Third case is property owner vs plumber. They hired plumber for one job, then asked for estimate on second job before paying in full for 1st job. There's a dispute whether the second job was authorized or if the plumber was there to make an estimate. The plumber refuses to finish first job until both jobs are paid in full. They refuse to finish paying for first job until he finishes it. Plumber was shady, trying to pad bill on second job because business was slow. Then he refused to finish 1st job as leverage to get both jobs paid, even though 2nd charge was in dispute. Plaintiffs win, but think they should have gotten more.

[AngelaHunter]

First case is "crazy black lady" suing noisy neighbor.

 

Even if he said it, which it sounds like he did not, I think "I hope he falls down and dies" trumps it. Wow.  The habits of neighbours will always irritate someone. If you want total silence you need to buy a house separated from any others.

 

Plaintiffs win (in plumber case), but think they should have gotten more.

 

They may have gotten more, if son hadn't decided to sign a work order with no hint of a price on it. And yeah, it was nutty for them to miss out on 12K of rent in order to avoid paying another 1700$. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[maggiemae]

Oh good grief - I have had a picture or two fall off the wall and the frames were broken but not the glass. But because of a minor earthquake - oh- and because they were not securely attached to boot.

I live in a condo - have for 26 years - we can make noise from 8a - 8p.

What a pathetic old woman - and I am not a spring chicken myself, lol.

She evidently never went to her Association nor did the police do anything.

[SRTouch]

They may have gotten more, if son hadn't decided to sign a work order with no hint of a price on it. And yeah, it was nutty for them to miss out on 12K of rent in order to avoid paying another 1700$. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Yeh, momma may have waited too long to start teaching son the business. I can't say too much, though, as I probably would have signed it just like the son. Not his momma, though. I have the feeling she would have been perfectly clear, accent or not, that she wanted an fricking ESTIMATE and she wasn't going to sign a BLANK WORK ORDER. It is surprising that she would miss out on months of rent while waiting on certificate of occupancy. I thought there might be a little more work being done to make it rent ready - like maybe that boiler which wasn't working and was the reason for the plumber's second job.

[DoctorK]

First case, both plaintiff and defendant annoyed the heck out of me. Plaintiff first, she must have watched too many Carol Channing bits, the breathlessness, the overdone gestures, the inability to shut up when told to by the judge, at least Carol Channing was deliberately a comedienne. The defendant was annoying because she was such an incompetent landlord. No usable pictures before and after, no receipts for the allegedly purchased paint. Defendant lost me more in the hallterview with the nonsense about the friendly ghost. Then the plaintiff followed up with more about the ghost, and “cleansing” the house.  I don’t think I would want to be anywhere near either of them, an absolute nightmare would be to be seated next to either of them on a long flight.

[SRTouch]

First case, both plaintiff and defendant annoyed the heck out of me. Plaintiff first, she must have watched too many Carol Channing bits, the breathlessness, the overdone gestures, the inability to shut up when told to by the judge, at least Carol Channing was deliberately a comedienne. The defendant was annoying because she was such an incompetent landlord. No usable pictures before and after, no receipts for the allegedly purchased paint. Defendant lost me more in the hallterview with the nonsense about the friendly ghost. Then the plaintiff followed up with more about the ghost, and “cleansing” the house.  I don’t think I would want to be anywhere near either of them, an absolute nightmare would be to be seated next to either of them on a long flight.

Couple of nuts, alright. I FF through it after a couple minutes of annoying yapping.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

First case, both plaintiff and defendant annoyed the heck out of me. Plaintiff first, she must have watched too many Carol Channing bits, the breathlessness, the overdone gestures, the inability to shut up when told to by the judge

 

Crazy. They're all crazy. I know JM was trying to be complimentary when she told plaintiff she looks young. She doesn't and not even the bleached hair and raccoon eyes did it. I think it was that her slob of a son, who is thirty-one years old, looks 51 at least so I guess that JM thought Mom had to be around 71. I can see why "Charlie" moved out. Not even a ghost could deal with these harridans and their shrill foul mouths.

 

Then we had, "I bought a 13 year old car from some guy on the street. How could anything go wrong?" Zero on the complaint.

 

The "rotadendrums" case was ultra boring. You'd think someone with the spiffy handle of " Allen Truesdale III" would pay his damned bills.

Edited March 2, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[cattykit]

Crazy. They're all crazy. I know JM was trying to be complimentary when she told plaintiff she looks young. She doesn't and not even the bleached hair and raccoon eyes did it. I think it was that her slob of a son, who is thirty-one years old, looks 51 at least so I guess that JM thought Mom had to be around 71. I can see why "Charlie" moved out. Not even a ghost could deal with these harridans and their shrill foul mouths.

 

Then we had, "I bought a 13 year old car from some guy on the street. How could anything go wrong?" Zero on the complaint.

 

The "rotadendrums" case was ultra boring. You'd think someone with the spiffy handle of " Allen Truesdale III" would pay his damned bills.

I actually thought at first that her son wasn't there because that guy had to be her husband. 

 

All the cases have been boring for quite some time.  Dogs, snow removal, landlords, and bad cars, lather, rinse, repeat.  The last really interesting case was that guy a while back who was double-dipping while he worked for the city (I think), and MM reamed him a new one.  Producers need to work harder.

[Rick Kitchen]

No self-respecting ghost would have stayed in that house with those crazy people.

[AngelaHunter]

No self-respecting ghost would have stayed in that house with those crazy people.

 

Float free, Charlie! I  know you can find a much better class of people to haunt.

 

Dogs, snow removal, landlords, and bad cars, lather, rinse, repeat.

 

I never watch dog cases, but I'm sure everyone including JM is sick of the idiots and their, "I bought this car without having it checked and he told me it was in perfect condtion (even though it's 15 years old and has 287,000 miles on it) and I trusted him but surprise! it broke down and the "As is" law shouldn't apply to me because I'm such a nice trusting person who goes to church every week and I'm special." OH, stuff it!

[Rick Kitchen]

Does anybody know the last name of Monique the ghost whisperer?  I was trying to find a website for her psychic business.

[SRTouch]

For today's first case we have plaintiff suing hairdresser for botched hair extensions. MM gets interested in the hair extensions process and leaves the bench to get a short tutorial. Defendant says she told plaintiff not to get her hair wet for 24 hours, and of course plaintiff claims she was told no such thing. The hair falls out, calls the defendant who agrees to come fix the problem. Impatient plaintiff goes online, alledgedly with a few friends, and posts negative comments - so defendant wants $500 for defamation. Plaintiff gets back the $175 she paid, but not the extra $2000 she tacked on. Defendant loses defamation suit.

Next we have gf suing bf for money she gave over the course of the relationship. Bf says loans are offset because she moved in with him when her mom disapproved of him. Not that it was his place, first they lived with his parents and later with his grandparents --- oh and she was paying the 'rents $150 a month rent. Eventually, she "wakes up," breaks up, finds a new bf and moves back to mom. MM points out that his position was silly, and he finally admits he owes the money. MM ends up awarding gf about half of what she's asking. Bf is just pitiful. He has new gf, a baby on the way, and says seeing plaintiff after a year has brought his feelings for her back to the surface. Makes me wonder if he is living with 'rents with new gf - and how happy will new gf be when she sees him admit on tv that he still has feelings for plaintiff.

Finally, tenant suing for deposit. Defendant says he kept part of deposit because last month's rent not paid, no 30 day notice, water and sewage bills, and damage to storm door, etc etc. He gives MM itemized list. MM decides tenant gets some money back, not what she wanted, but she's satisfied with jufgement.

[BubblingKettle]

HAHAHA!!  Douglas' face during the hallterview with the grimy-looking woman who pulled out her hair extensions!

 

Moises went blind for days....bless him.  I know some folks had a chuckle at his expense, but truthfully, stress can do bizarre things to a body.  The guy may have poached money from his dopey, bratty ex, but he seemed like he was a fragile person and may not have been malicious. Poor thing was all about telling the truth, even in the hallterview when he admitted that he still had feelings. (again, Douglas' face)

[AngelaHunter]

Hair plaintiff? What left me scratching my head is that SHE thought what she really needed were hair extensions. I can think of things she could have spent that money on that would have profited her more. Was she missing front teeth? Anyway, def. was smart, well-spoken, pretty and professional, until she revealed she pulled an ol' switcheroo with the hair. She covered it pretty well, but it's still skeevy.

 

Plaintiff suing her inarticulate "former ex-boyfriend" for every single cent she showered on him during their four years together: Even though she came off as a bit of dumb bunny, I'm glad she woke up and realized she needed to unload this loser who works sometimes and  has hysterical blindness over a girlfriend leaving him. It this is the case, the future does not bode well for him. I hate to tell him, but life hold stressors way bigger than that.  I"m sure his new baby momma was thrilled to watch this and see he's still carrying a torch for the plaintiff.

 

I did like Dumb Bunny sticking it to the irritating Hall AssClown and telling him she didn't "win" anything and that it was her money. I can't believe no one has punched No-Neck yet.

 

 

 

 

[SRTouch]

 

Plaintiff suing her inarticulate "former ex-boyfriend" for every single cent she showered on him during their four years together: Even though she came off as a bit of dumb bunny, I'm glad she woke up and realized she needed to unload this loser who works sometimes and  has hysterical blindness over a girlfriend leaving him. It this is the case, the future does not bode well for him. I hate to tell him, but life hold stressors way bigger than that.  I"m sure his new baby momma was thrilled to watch this and see he's still carrying a torch for the plaintiff.

 

I did like Dumb Bunny sticking it to the irritating Hall AssClown and telling him she didn't "win" anything and that it was her money. I can't believe no one has punched No-Neck yet.

She DOES have a point. She may have won the case, but the money she is getting is money that "former ex" admits owing and has been refusing to repay for years.

[DoctorK]

First case today: Kids’ party trashes rented house:
I didn't like the way JM treated it as cute kids getting a little playful, and unless I blinked and missed it, the rampant underage drinking was ignored. It weirded me out that the big defendant looked 30 years old while all of her friends looked 13. Finally, I couldn't stand the snot nosed little brat with the light blue shirt - just because you look like Frodo doesn't mean you can slide through life acting like an eight year old.

[AngelaHunter]

It weirded me out that the big defendant looked 30 years old while all of her friends looked 13.

 

I was thinking the same thing! Great big def. looked almost like the House Mom of the little motley crew. That itty-bitty tiny one was a girl... right? 

 

didn't like the way JM treated it as cute kids getting a little playful

 

I didn't like it either. They deserved one of her tongue-lashings. How many times have we heard people 19 - 22 years old old excusing their abominable, irresponsible behavior with, "We're kids! This is what kids do!"  Sorry, but it's not. It's what silly, spoiled brats do.  I never destroyed anyone's property when I was that age, even if I were drinking. And as per usual, none of the damage was their fault. Mom, sitting in the audience, looked so proud.  

 

But the plaintiff sounded so utterly ridiculous when she said she's not allowed to ask the age of anyone she's contracting with. Yeah, she may not ask race or religion, but neither of those thing impact a contract, which age certainly does. Sure, I'd let a whole gang of big babies live in my home for a week.

 

Guy suing former employee: I had to think how quickly JJ would have shut him down when he started, "When I was eleven years old..." He had his speech all prepared which had to do with - absolutely nothing. Didn't change the fact that def. owned 130$ and for some reason would rather stiff the plaintiff and be shamed on national tv than pay up.

[SRTouch]

First case today: Kids’ party trashes rented house:

I didn't like the way JM treated it as cute kids getting a little playful, and unless I blinked and missed it, the rampant underage drinking was ignored. It weirded me out that the big defendant looked 30 years old while all of her friends looked 13. Finally, I couldn't stand the snot nosed little brat with the light blue shirt - just because you look like Frodo doesn't mean you can slide through life acting like an eight year old.

I agree, MM blew this one. Like you say, nothing said about underage thinking. And MM even agreed with the one little punk that it was a great idea to set up slip and slide - what lesson did that teach? Wasn't it just yesterday MM lectured the gf in the gf/bf case that there should be some consequence for acting stupid. Instead of cutting the dollar amount of today's judgement, plaintiffs should have got everything they asked for, plus more for having to hunt through whole house for missing property. We never did get a firm number of party goers, but going with the 10 kid estimate, this judgement is barely a slap on the wrist if each pays a portion.

They were still laughing it up in the hallterview, saying "what do you expect, kids will be kids!" Hey, you're no longer kids, you've crossed over that magic age barrier and are now legally adults. These young adults thought it was a big joke to come in and tear up someone's property. This ruling does nothing to teach these young adults that there are consequences to acting stupid.

Edited March 4, 2016 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

I agree, MM blew this one.

 

I can't help thinking ( I could be totally wrong) that because she has teenagers she leans towards giving them a pass. I think it may be similar to the family thing, which we've discussed - the way she thinks all families should, and must be, be close and loving no matter what.

 

Someone who is nineteen and has zero regard or respect for the hard-earned property of others needs to be shamed into learning to do the right thing, and not just given something cool to post on their stupid FB pages.

 

Plaintiff says she no longer rents to anyone under twenty-five. Sorry, but that's no guarantee as we've seen many people older who act like wild animals in someone else's home. As long as you let strangers ( who don't give a damn what you paid for anything) live in your house, you're taking a big chance.

[BubblingKettle]

Today's episode with the high schoolers in the rental brought back a memory for me....   One of the local traditions when I graduated high school was to go on "Senior Week" at the beach (down the shore, as we'd say). My best girlfriends and I used our earnings from our part-time jobs to rent three connecting condos in Ocean City, New Jersey. We weren't the party hardy types. Sure, we shouldn't have had any drinks at all....but I must say that none of us got drunk. Maybe we were a little nerdy; maybe we we didn't want to test the boundaries too much. Either way, it worked for us.

 

Anyway, there was a wicker coffee table with a glass inset in one of the living rooms. Two of my friends and I were sitting on the couch -- comparing tans, having girl talk, sharing spritzes of Elizabeth Arden Sunflower perfume, you know...all that good stuff.  Well, my friend Sue came in to join the convo and perched the edge of her rear on the wicker edge of the coffee table. After about five minutes - CRASH! - there went the glass top. No one was harmed. Good Lord, Sue had no butt and hardly any meat on her bones --- poor girl was completely shocked, as were the rest of us.  But in a few minutes, we had a laugh -- not because we stupidly broke someone's property but because our skinny little friend somehow had the ass-power to smash furniture...and we didn't even have a "we were having a wild party" as a lead up to the main event. 

 

We girls, before the age of Google and the use of cell phones, found a glass repair shop and had the table looking better than before by the end of the next day. I hadn't thought about that story in decades. But seeing those twits made me think of it. Those fools couldn't even put the mini-fridge in its right place? And they hid a couch cushion? And they couldn't throw their trash in the bin? They should have celebrated their graduation in Porchville or on Backyard Island.  

[SRTouch]

How many times have we heard people 19 - 22 years old old excusing their abominable, irresponsible behavior with, "We're kids! This is what kids do!"  Sorry, but it's not. It's what silly, spoiled brats do.  I never destroyed anyone's property when I was that age, even if I were drinking. And as per usual, none of the damage was their fault. Mom, sitting in the audience, looked so proud.

I've turned into an old fogey, just sitting here remembering the good old days. Fact is, when I was 18 I had been working part time for 4 years. On my 19th birthday, my parents didn't have to worry about me throwing a wild party. That was my drill sergeant's job, and as I remember he let me get out of a road march by giving me KP.

[maggiemae]

Do I remember correctly - these kids were there but did no damage themselves? Just their friends.

Yet could not even manage to clean up and put things back in order?

But I'm not really buying some of them weren't under 18. Just a chance to be on teeveeeee.

I'm not even believing the lead "girl" was 18 or 19.....or 20.

[DoctorK]

 

Do I remember correctly - these kids were there but did no damage themselves? Just their friends.

So they claimed. I believed them about as far as I can comfortably spit a rat. Particularly little snot nose.

Edited March 5, 2016 by DoctorK

[Rick Kitchen]

It's no wonder that one girl was the point woman in all of their dealings with the house owners.  She looked 30 and didn't have to tell them there was going to be an entire school load of teenagers.

[BubblingKettle]

I'm not even believing the lead "girl" was 18 or 19.....or 20.

In her teenage years, she probably thinks she's lucky to have genes that make her look older (for getting rentals, getting booze, etc.). In a few decades, she'll curse those genes when she's at her class reunion and the attendees assume "that older lady must be a former faculty member."

[AngelaHunter]

she'll curse those genes when she's at her class reunion and the attendees assume "that older lady must be a former faculty member."

 

She looks like a faculty member now!

[SRTouch]

Today's episode with the high schoolers in the rental brought back a memory for me....

We girls, before the age of Google and the use of cell phones, found a glass repair shop and had the table looking better than before by the end of the next day.

Hmmph You probably walk your dog on a leash, pay your bills on time, and even leave rental properties broom swept when you leave. So we'll never see you on court tv unless you wear a rainbow colored doily on you head Edited March 5, 2016 by SRTouch

[teebax]

We didn't have beach rental money, but some friends and I rented a couple of adjoining hotel rooms after graduation. My older sister let me use her ID for alcohol, but I didn't really know what I was doing. I bought some shitty beer and boxed wine because I had no clue and just bought was was cheap. Anyway, we all drank, went swimming, played cards, and danced to a little boom box we'd brought along. None of us got ridiculously drunk or destroyed any property.

I don't know that we were particularly good kids. We just knew we could barely afford what little we were doing. Paying for damages beyond the money we were already spending was out of the question. I think these kids had a little too much money and too little sense. That's what happens when you indulge them and treat them like their shenanigans are cute. JJ would have eviscerated these little shits. And that lead defendant is going to look like Mama June if she doesn't get her weight under control. She's way too big to be her age, and I wonder if the others didn't befriend her simply because she could secure liquor and rentals for them.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

JJ would have eviscerated these little shits.

 

YES! I was wishing they had  been on JJ. Pretty much guaranteed they wouldn't have been smirking and giggling by the time she got done ripping them all new ones.

 

Quote

None of us got ridiculously drunk or destroyed any property.

 

No? Haven't you learned from watching these shows that getting drunk and vandalizing property is the only way to have fun? Bonus if you get into a fistfight with one of your friends.

 

I never had a drink until I was 21, but had I gotten drunk and destroyed someone else's property as a teen I would have been terrified of the consequences. But not only do none of the kids we see here HAVE any consequences, they have parents who will battle like cornered badgers to excuse the behavior of their hell spawn. Even if they can be beaten into finally admitting their snowflake did indeed do it, then it's "But it wasn't his/her FAULT!"

Edited March 6, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[WhitneyWhit]

I was hoping JM would ask the mom just what she thinks of her little darlings getting shitfaced and trashing someone's home. But considering she had a smirk of pride on her face, I doubt she thinks they did anything wrong.

[BubblingKettle]

Hmmph You probably walk your dog on a leash, pay your bills on time, and even leave rental properties broom swept when you leave. So we'll never see you on court tv unless you wear a rainbow colored doily on you head

Well, I do have a blonde wig I used on Halloween when I was Emily Elizabeth with Clifford the Big Red Dog.  It definitely makes me look insane. 

[VartanFan]

 

Landlord case. Plaintiff is a law student, making me tighten my resolve to never require the services of a lawyer.

 

To be clear, he was 'pre law'...meaning no law school has yet been dumb enough to accept him (and we'll see if he even makes it through undergrad).  I've met a lot of people in my day who call themselves 'pre law' or 'pre med' and never even whiff those graduate schools.  I think people think it makes them sound smart.  

[SRTouch]

To be clear, he was 'pre law'...meaning no law school has yet been dumb enough to accept him (and we'll see if he even makes it through undergrad).  I've met a lot of people in my day who call themselves 'pre law' or 'pre med' and never even whiff those graduate schools.  I think people think it makes them sound smart.

Gotcha, sort of like all the "nurses" we see

[AngelaHunter]

To be clear, he was 'pre law'...

 

It doesn't matter. There was a third-year law student on JJ and when JJ asked her to complete the sentence, "Preponderance of... " the student said, "... a doubt?" Anyone who's even watched a Lifetime movie would know that! It's frightening.

[DebbieW]

So frustrating that people are not being taught that they are responsible for their actions and the consequences of them.  I'm an elementary school teacher, and I hear all the time how it's not the fault of my precious little snowflake who just happens to shit rainbows and glitter.  What's equally upsetting to me is how surprised people are when someone takes responsibility for their actions or for events that might have even been beyond their control.

 

During a recent storm a small tree of mine fell on my neighbor's fence.  He came out right away to cut it so that it didn't cause any further damage by remaining on the fence (mitigating the damage!).  I immediately offered to reimburse him for the gas that his chainsaw needed and to replace the blade if necessary, as well as pay for the damage to the fence.  Turned out that the damage was really minimal in the light of day and he just fixed it himself.  I had a similar result when my car door slammed into someone else's in a parking lot because of a wind gust.  I took pictures (because cell phones aren't just for sending nasty pictures - MM) and left a note with my name and phone number.  They called (and were really surprised that it was an accurate number and that I was taking responsibility).  Turns out they were able to buff it out and it wasn't a big deal.  They asked me for nothing, not even the cost of buffing it.  People shouldn't need to be astonished when someone handles a situation with a sense of responsibility.  That should be the norm.  I hate the MM contributed to the "so what, I damaged your property" mentality.

Edited March 6, 2016 by DebbieW

[SRTouch]

Ahh reruns

Edited March 7, 2016 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

First up is dummy suing scam artist for refund of purchase price on car he never received.

 

Watching this makes me think we've been too hard on the 19 and 20 year old idiots. Plaintiff here is a man past middle age who buys an 11 year old car, sight unseen, from someone in another state and sends $4500 for it up front. Calling him "naive" is way too kind. That word is for the very young. At his age, the word is "STUPID."

 

The crook def, Yogi Bear, is of the mind that you just deny, deny and deny every single thing.

 

 

he's not only not a lawyer, he's not a certified paralegal).

 

But... he read some stuff online about it! He took some classes in business adminstration. That should be enough to enable him to practice law, right? The def, with his lizard-like tongue darting out, was equally disgusting. I know that had I ever been convicted of a crime, that day would be burned into my memory forever. Him? JM asks how many times he's been convicted and he answers - after some thought - "Eight or seven times."  It's just part of life! That's the kind of reply I'd give if I were asked how many times I'd sent an email this month.

 

Last up landlord sues tenant for damages and back rent.

 

I kind of have a grudging admiration for someone who comes from another country and learns the legal ins and outs on working the system so quickly. "It will take six months to get me out."

[AZChristian]

In the halterview of the scam car sale case, the defendant walked out and said, "It is what it is." 

 

It has been my experience with TV court cases that this is a legal term which is translated as:  "I'm guilty, but was hoping to get away with it.  I didn't."

[SRTouch]

Watching this makes me think we've been too hard on the 19 and 20 year old idiots.

⚠ OFF TOPIC: Not long ago I was poking fun at people today being so gullible as to fall for today's "reality tv