The People's Court - General Discussion

[WhitneyWhit]

⚠ OFF TOPIC: Not long ago I was poking fun at people today being so gullible as to fall for today's "reality tv ". A friend pointed out that back in the day people got upset with the Coast Guard for not rescuing the crew of the SS Minnow back in the mid-60s. This despite the fact there was a laugh track on Gilligan's Island.

Heh, that reminds me of the story Audrey Meadows (Alice from The Honeymooners) told about people sending her things such as aprons, potholders, curtains, and even money, to help her out because they really thought The Honeymooners were real. 

[SRTouch]

Today's lesson is you get what you pay. Plaintiff wanted chairs refurbished, so went online and found an ad that sounded nice and cheap. She loads up her chairs and takes them to the shop - but turns out not to be a shop, but someone's home. Instead of turning around and going home, plaintiff leaves the chairs - after all it's cheap and will be done in 3-4 days. Couple months and countless text messages later, plaintiff has had enough and goes to get her chairs. (Have to communicate by text because defendant has had throat surgery and can't talk above a whisper.) Plaintiff dissatisfied with the work, and defendant wants more time and money to finish so a tug of war ensues with both pulling on chair. Finally plaintiff gets her chairs after her aunt pays the original price.

So now they're in court with plaintiff wanting a refund and defendant countersuing because she thinks her crappie job is worth more than the agreed upon price. JM inspects a couple of the chairs, announces the work is crap, and gives plaintiff her money back.

So, what's the punchline? Defendant made up a name for her upholstery business and started advertising and plaintiff is her 2nd customer. When MM asks how does learned how to recondition furniture, her answer is she watched videos on YouTube. Even after MM calling defendant over and showing her the crappie work, defendant wants to argue that with a little more time she would have done a good job. Defendant even tries to talk over JM, though she can't talk above a whisper. Defendant is temporarily out of the upholstery business until she watches more video.

[fusedd]

I am looking for an episode where the defendant calls out to a dog in the courtroom in order to prove it's his dog.

after the dog does not respond the slightest bit, the defendant tells the judge something like this "you see your honor, he never listens to me!"

 

 please help me there seems to be no database i can use to find this info

[oakLeaf]

I just watched the sailfish case, and the judge got that one wrong. All mounted fish are fake - there's no such thing as an actual "stuffed" fish. They take a real fish, make a casting, and then make a fiberglass replica and paint it.

[SRTouch]

I just watched the sailfish case, and the judge got that one wrong. All mounted fish are fake - there's no such thing as an actual "stuffed" fish. They take a real fish, make a casting, and then make a fiberglass replica and paint it.

I've never really understood those who keep taxidermy trophies. The case made me wonder if the defendant was full of crap, or if he really found 2-3 thousand dollar fish mounts online. Yep, I even found 1 costing $3950 + $250 shipping.

https://www.1stdibs.com/furniture/decorative-objects/sculptures/animal-sculptures/fabulous-vintage-sailfish-caught-1944/id-f_924180/?utm_content=test&product=f924180&gclid=Cj0KEQiAsP-2BRCFl4Lb2NTJttEBEiQAmj2tbT6XzZ6ac_dU4_AcIY91VigSFB1LvPGlf8qlFv0aDgQaAh3D8P8HAQ

Like you say, though, using a real fish seems to be increasing rare, according to

http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/hunting/game-handling/taxidermy3.htm

According to this site, salt water fish are even more difficult to work than fresh water. From the little bit of research I did, mounting a fish makes even less sense than a mounting a hunting trophy. Once you dry the skin it loses the colors, so you would need to paint it to match a picture. Guess that's why they're rare - thousands for a painted fish skin vs fiberglass replica at $69 and up.

[AngelaHunter]

I've never really understood those who keep taxidermy trophies.

 

I couldn't rewatch this case. Personally, I find grown men bragging about the fact that they managed to outsmart and kill a fish kind of ewww. True heroes they are! It's 2016. The time for killing animals for no other reason than the pure fun of it should be long since over, IMO.

 

Today we had the dreary rurun of the "Black Vampires" video case. The only interesting part, to me, is that someone who uses words like "ideology" and "collaboration" also says "we was" and  "idear." Ho hum.

[AngelaHunter]

I don't recall that episode, but you might try searching TPC on YouTube.

[DoctorK]

 

The only interesting part, to me, is that someone who uses words like "ideology" and "collaboration" also says "we was" and  "idear."

Yeah, I picked up on that. I also felt that when he used some of his fancy words, he didn't really know what they mean. Although I can forgive "idear", I was born and raised in Washington DC and people tell me that I pronounce it "warshington" but I don't hear that. I also figure, born and raised in DC (and not Georgetown part), by definition my pronounciation should be correct.

[Arynm]

On todays show I saw the most amazing, ridiculous hair that I have ever seen! I mean, who decides its a good idea to have a huge silver braid that goes around on the top of your head like a crown? Lady looked like Nefertiti for God's sake! I laughed and laughed and then decided that she was working it. More power to her if she can pull that hair off.

[AZChristian]

Grandma with the braid was a repeat episode.  The first time I saw it, I wondered if she used her hairdo as a bowl to carry stuff if her hands were full.  Or she could put a potted plant in there.

 

Weird, for sure.

[maggiemae]

One of the most rediculously funny lines was uttered by a young woman today-

JM What were you doing in West Palm Beach?

YW - well - he was doing me.....

OMG - that was one sordid love story.

Edited March 12, 2016 by maggiemae

[AngelaHunter]

YW - well - he was doing me.....

 

I guess that, and other equally charming terms for relationships, i.e. "We was messin' around" is what passes for romance these days.

[SRTouch]

I guess that, and other equally charming terms for relationships, i.e. "We was messin' around" is what passes for romance these days.

"Nah, we were never in a relationship, he/she is just my baby daddy/momma"

[arejay]

"We was messin' around" is what passes for romance these days.

Does that come before or after " we was kickin' it"?

 

 

[Rick Kitchen]

One of the most rediculously funny lines was uttered by a young woman today-

JM What were you doing in West Palm Beach?

YW - well - he was doing me.....

OMG - that was one sordid love story.

 

She said "*I* was doing me."  Not quite sure what that was implying.

[momtoall]

She said "*I* was doing me." Not quite sure what that was implying.

 

The "now" version of "doing my own thing". 

[AngelaHunter]

Today: As I started listening to the car repair people, I thought they had a hell of a nerve, screwing up the bill so badly and expecting the customer to pay for it. But then when we heard what the def. did, scamming and forging documents and lying it all looked different. If nothing else, she knew damned well she owed the $750. She was going to pay them, but they harassed her to pay them so she decided not to pay them. Judge M's moral outrage at this amoral behavior was totally justified.

 

With the mobile home couple, we saw the zenith of "As Is" stupidity. Did they really think, at their ages,  "No encumbrances" means "This place is in great condition"? They didn't want to pay for an inspection, signed a contract agreeing to buy it with no warranties of any kind, but think they can get money back? They looked and sounded ridiculous. And even after JM explained to them, they still thought they were right. Unreal. I was kind of disturbed by thinking the def's elderly mother was living in those conditions.

 

Sad-sack mope/crocodile tears Honduras Mom: Poor her. Nothing is her fault. She had her 8 year old taken away for 2 years for neglect, but it's not her fault. It's also not her fault that she went to pick up her one-year old (fathered by god-knows-who) so drunk the daycare informed the authorities and had THAT one taken away as well. It's all the fault of the people she chose to hang out with - the ones who poured booze down her throat and made her neglect her children. If there was ever a case where someone needs to be darted and forcibly sterilized, this is it, so she can't squeeze out any more kids to neglect. JM didn't give her nearly enough of a spanking, but I guess she knew she'd be wasting her breath.

[WhitneyWhit]

To quote my favorite comedian, Lewis Black, in regards to stupid people, "That's when you take them all out back and give them a spanking".

 

I, too, at first thought "Hey you screwed up the bill, that's your blues" but the fact that the defendant knew what her bill was supposed to be, and that she knew they made a mistake obviously pissed me off as much as it did JM. Plus there was the doctored evidence, which always sets her off. Honestly, do these idiots really believe some white out and chicken scratch is going to fool her?

 

The mobile home people. WTH? They buy an old mobile home that was listed "As is" in  the contract and are shocked, absolutely stunned, that it has problems. How do they make it through everyday life without getting their heads stuck in a hole?

 

And finally we have our mother of the year. She's always there for her kids, she'll even take time out from her busy schedule of drinking to show up to her kids' daycare, drunk no less, to pick them up. And maybe I'm heartless, but I totally believe the defendant in that there was no family emergency in Honduras, she was just going there to meet her Facebook sugar daddy.

 

Also, her attire must go in the The People's Court clothing hall of fame. Nothing says dignified litigant quite like jeans with "Hottie" written down the thigh.

[DoctorK]

 

They buy an old mobile home that was listed "As is" in  the contract and are shocked, absolutely stunned, that it has problems.

But but but - the male plaintiff is an expert, he is a licensed electrical contractor (for all of four years as he slipped in in an aside).

Edited March 14, 2016 by DoctorK

[AngelaHunter]

Also, her attire must go in the The People's Court clothing hall of fame.

 

Not to mention the push-up, half-exposed breasts. I guess she never watched this show and doesn't know JM has no interest in breasts? Maybe she was looking for another hook-up here? And why are her kid(s) in daycare when she doesn't work? Are the taxpayers footing the bill so she can spend her days drinking and doing whatever else she does? No wonder everyone wants to come to North America, where the ride is free!

[Rick Kitchen]

 

Are the taxpayers footing the bill so she can spend her days drinking and doing whatever else she does?

 

The defendant said something about the city paying for her childcare.

[BubblingKettle]

And why are her kid(s) in daycare when she doesn't work? Are the taxpayers footing the bill so she can spend her days drinking and doing whatever else she does? No wonder everyone wants to come to North America, where the ride is free!

 

The defendant said something about the city paying for her childcare.

And the defendant also mentioned that one of the kids gets an SSI check. I guess he has FAS or worse.

[rcc]

The Honduran woman sleezes her way into the courtroom with her tales of woe. What a pathetic excuse for a mother. She spends her days drinking and whatever else she is up to and has the nerve to sue. Taking advantage of the system instead of working and taking care of her kids. It's people like that what makes Donald Trump so popular with his followers and the need for a wall.

[Rick Kitchen]

This morning's rerun: "I told him I would pay my share of the rent when I were able to pay."

[teebax]

It's people like that what makes Donald Trump so popular with his followers and the need for a wall.

Funny, I thought it was abject stupidity.

 

Politics aside, she was a vile woman. "Hottie" my ass. Her children need to be permanently removed. I don't know if they mentioned that they were, but she's never going to get her act together. She has no incentive to.

[SRTouch]

Dude (plaintiff) in first case gets out of jail, meets girl (defendant), and they move in together. (Sidenote: he uses a walker because he was shot in driveby.) He adds her name on his car registration to avoid paying old tickets. But wait, car gets booted because she owes for more tickets than he does. Plaintiff's dad steps in and pays off her tickets so they can get boot off. One day when he's visiting at her house she runs out to move the car, and she takes off and hides it. Now he's suing for the value of the car, it's a $1900 clunker, the $1900 his Dad paid for her tickets to get the boot off, the money he's had to pay for taxis because she has his car, etc etc. for grand total of the max $5000. Defendant has countersuit, of course, for various things - only surprise is she's not suing for the max, she wants $4299.03. Had this been JJ they would have received the "clean hands" speech and been laughed out of court. MM listens to their stories and ends up awarding money for the car and what she owes plaintiff's dad for her tickets, so he gets $2500 and she keeps car. There's several unanswered questions. Who owns the clunker? If she still has it she's probably getting new tickets, and my understanding is registration is in both names, who ends up paying for the new tickets? Has the plaintiff's $1300 in old tickets ever been paid? How do these two still have drivers licenses when they owe all this money in old tickets, and who gives them insurance? Finally, what's with the defendant's emotionless face? Only time she showed any emotion, MM scolded her in Spanish for making faces. In hallterview, defendant is still staring off into space, and plaintiff is still hoping to get back "his car". (I thought ruling awarded him money for the car, so doesn't that mean she keeps it.)

Next up is tenant suing landlord for $3300 deposit, and of course landlord wants $5000 for $5400 in damages. Plaintiff's case starts out wonky. (Noticeable stains on plaintiff's top.) She says she had a 6 months lease which was then going to month to month. MM asks for the lease, and litigants have two totally different leases, and plaintiff's is unsigned. Plaintiff starts asking about return of security a month before she moves out, and is upset because landlord is vague. As the case goes along, the tide swings back and I start questioning the landlord more and more. He already has $3300 of the tenants money, and he wants another $5000, so he wants over $8000 and he has absolutely no evidence of what any damage costs, he has pictures, but no estimates of costs. He ends up getting nothing from countersuit and has to pay back part of security. Of course, plaintiff is unhappy she's not getting back all of her deposit, despite admitting to some damage.

Finally, bumper cars in the parking lot. Funny thing was defendant had a passenger outside to stop traffic, and instead of waiting for him to guide her back she backed into plaintiff because due thought it was clear. Used to see that all the time when I was in the Army. Driver has a "ground guide" to direct him as he backs up, shoves it in reverse ignoring the ground guide.

Edited March 17, 2016 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

Grrr. No TPC here today. We needed "Paid programming" which could only pre-empt this show and no other.

[cattykit]

I see this topic is no spoilers.  I don't think it's a spoiler to suggest that 99% of the time MM rules in favor of the little dog over the big dog, the dog off the leash over the dog on the leash, and the bitee over the biter.  I do remember one case where she found that a pit bull owner was actually in the right, but that was the day hell froze over, too.

[SRTouch]

Two guys acting like fools collide on the road. My take on the accident jibes with MM, plaintiff turns onto busy, 6 lane roadway, cutting off defendant. Defendant is PO'ed, and acts like a dumb teenager, zooming up like he's going to hit plaintiff, then slowing at last moment. Plaintiff, acting the fool, hits his brakes and they collide. Now plaintiff is suing for way more than his car is worth, medical, and pain and suffering. Defendant is countersuing to get his bumper fixed. I find it notable that defendant's gf and plaintiff's wife, both of whom were in the cars are witnesses, couldn't miss work and weren't in court. Pretty simple case, even though plaintiff was driving like an a$$hole, defendant rear-ended him so he's at fault.

Now things get interesting. Defendant, who needs a cowboy hat to complete his outfit, admits he habitually pays his insurance late. The insurance company canceled his policy when it was time to renew, so he was uninsured at time of accident. His co-defendant , who is either his sister or like a sister, is not happy to learn he was driving the car she co-signed for with no insurance. If the case had ended there, I think MM would have just ruled against defendant. But wait, sister/like a sister produces a letter they received demanding outrageous amount of money. Letter is supposedly from plaintiff's lawyer, but doesn't pass the sniff test. At first plaintiff tries to say it was sent by lawyer, but changes story to it was an email from the lawyer that he printed - and of course he doesn't have the email. MM slaps his wrist by saying he's 40% responsible for accident, really just a gesture, since the total for defendant's 60% is over the max of $5000. Both sides still want to argue case in hallway.

Next up tenant suing landlord for deposit. Landlord countersuing for $3000 in damages. Part of the dispute is tenant was already in duplex when landlord bought property. So, we get to listen in when MM calls previous owner to talk about conditions when tenant moved in. The previous owner torpedoes the bulk of the current landlords claim when he says he gave some tenant permission to put foam around holes in walls to keep out mice. Defendant gets a tiny portion of her damage claim, but it disappears because she didn't provide an itemized list of damages on time according to their local law. Plaintiff gets double the amount that she would have, so ends up with $1950 from $1100 deposit.

NOTE: This was a DYI project gone bad. Tenant asked previous owner if she could put foam around all the holes in walls where electric or plumbing passes through wall. I don't think he knew she was going to go crazy with spray foam - I mean who would fill up an old heater with spray foam. My first thought was that spray foam alone would be useless to keep out mice.

Last case, plaintiff wants home inspector to pay $3000+ in plumbing bills for plumbing problem inspector missed when doing inspection of house plaintiff was buying. Plaintiff wants MM to throw out the signed contract, which of isn't going to happen. First, the contract has a provision for when the inspector would pay. If the inspection missed something, the home owner has to notify the inspection company within a specified time so they come back and see the problem. Plaintiff didn't notify inspection company until months after plumbing was replaced. Even had he followed the proper notification process, contract caps liability, and plaintiff is asking for way more than the contract allows.

[cattykit]

I bought a house in 2007 (yes, I know) and my asshole realtor chose the inspector for me--after I said I wanted to look at the different options.  There was no contract.  I just had to fork over money.  Inspector acted pissed off that I even wanted to watch what he was doing.  Anyway, he completely missed a rotted out connection to the washing machine that the sellers conveniently wanted to leave behind.  I insisted they take their appliances with them since I had my own.  The movers showed me, on my moving day, the problem with the washer connection and said if they hooked me up I'd have a flood.  I had to get a plumber out that day to repair the connection so I could hook up my washer to the tune of many hundreds of dollars.  Told the asshole realtor about it and he basically shrugged and I got nothing.  The same realtor who advised me to ask for nothing to be fixed from what the inspector actually did see, because I might piss off the sellers.  I hate realtors.  Bought my last house, six months ago, without a buyer's agent.  The inspector I got was painfully thorough, and he saved me from buying a pretty house that would have instantly needed many K in repairs.

 

I wonder what MM would have done in the absence of a signed contract. 

 

And I have no idea what the law is on road rage when you're provoked into being an idiot when in general, if you hit someone from behind, you're screwed no matter what.  So I guess she did a little rough justice although it made no actual difference.  I thought the guy said he was out $20K, and if that was true, why take it to small claims court where you are capped?  Maybe he knew he was partly in the wrong.

[Rick Kitchen]

Man, that young guy in the road rage case was a good ol' boy, wasn't he? I was shocked he wasn't from Texas.  Nope, Florida.

[SRTouch]

And I have no idea what the law is on road rage when you're provoked into being an idiot when in general, if you hit someone from behind, you're screwed no matter what.  So I guess she did a little rough justice although it made no actual difference.  I thought the guy said he was out $20K, and if that was true, why take it to small claims court where you are capped?  Maybe he knew he was partly in the wrong.

Plaintiff probably stopped at ambulance chasing lawyer on way to ER. If I heard correctly, lawyer was already working on case before they found defendant was uninsured. I wonder if the lawyer dropped plaintiff when he found cowboy dude was uninsured, and that was why plaintiff tried the fake letter looking for settlement.

[rcc]

If there ever was a case that needed a judge it was the road rage one. That plaintiff was shady as hell and the good ol boy defendent was naive and stupidly didn't pay his insurance premium. There are too many of these cases where the defendents just don't keep their insurance up to date or don't even bother to get it.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if that plaintiff did the whole thing on purpose so he could sue somebody. Maybe he didn't bring the wife to court because he figured she wasn't a convincing liar.

Edited March 18, 2016 by rcc

[zillabreeze]

I was shocked he wasn't from Texas.  Nope, Florida.

 

Same psychosis, different state, and I live in Texas.  I play a little game with myself when I read weird news/crime stories.  I try to guess "Florida or Texas" before I find out.  I'm always shocked when it's one of the other 48.

my asshole realtor chose the inspector for me-

I dodged a serious bullet in '05.  My realtor recommended a guy that gave a clean bill of health.  She (my realtor) saw some paint in the hallway that had a slightly different sheen above the doorways.  She pulled my offer and called in another guy that found a slab (sewer, eeew) leak under my bedroom floor.  Long story- it was bad- the floor had to be jackhammered up, pipes replaced, tile replaced, carpet re-stretched. To the tune of $8k, which was filed and paid under the previous owners insurance. She chose the plumber and oversaw the repairs like it was her own house.

 

My realtor called inspector #1 in front of me, stopped payment on his fee and tore his ass up. Threatened to RUIN him with all her realtor buddies.  I recommend her to this day.

[AngelaHunter]

Plaintiff probably stopped at ambulance chasing lawyer on way to ER.

 

I was surprised that shyster lawyer sent them to a physio. Usually it's a chiropractor.

 

When very young I skidded on some ice and hit a guy from behind. Later I got a lawyer's letter informing me that his client has "permanent partial disability", blah blah from a not-very-hard hit. Strangely enough, and unlike 95% of litigants, I actually had insurance so didn't have to worry about it.

 

Ol' Bubba was a hoot and maybe he'll get off his ass and make his payments on time now. I think the last time I heard someone speak that way was in a movie. Wow. JM was trying not to show her amusement.

[SRTouch]

'Nother tenant suing landlord for return of deposit. First impressions: suit wearing plaintiff has some kind of skunk hairdo thing going on; landlord comes in smiling with BIG keyring full of keys hanging from belt; both litigants have lots of paperwork (plaintiff's turns out to hurt his case rather than help); apartment in question must be really nice with monthly rent of $863. Plaintiff waffles every time he's asked something. He says he left because of huge rat problem, he was killing them two at a time in his apartment. He says he made multiple complaints to both landlord and section 8 (yep section 8 paid $500 and plaintiff $363 a month). Defendant says only complaint was once from tenant in the 4 years tenant was there, section 8 came and apartment never failed an inspection. Defendant says none of the other tenants complained of rodents (he says mice and defendant says rats) in the 4 years. Plaintiff says everyone had rats, that's why there were so many cats around. (I have both cats and domestic rats, but my mighty hunters run away from the rats.) Landlord says he notified section 8 lease would not be renewed, and tenant was to be out sept 1, which is why tenant left, not rats. Section 8 made their last payment Aug 1, but tenant stayed until Nov. Tenant continued paying his $363 each month. He insists section 8 continued paying those months but defendant has paperwork showing the last payment in aug, so those months' rent was $500 short each month. Plaintiff says he should get back deposit since he moved out because of the rats, and says he has 8 or 9 failed inspections from section 8, which is why section 8 quit paying. He's one of those who thinks a stack of papers will overwhelm the judge. Unfortunately, MM reads the papers and they backfire, no failed inspections. But wait, here's two more, these are the failures. Douglas brings those and yep, MM finds these are failed inspections - for a different address. MM has had enough, and dismisses case.

FINAL THOUGHT: Guy was receiving section 8 before moving in, lived there 4 years, and says he's back getting assistance in new place. JJ would have wanted to know what this guy was doing with his life, because Byrd is tired of supporting him. Dude, get a job, go to school, do SOMETHING!!!

2nd case, guy makes the smart decision to get his $1000 clunker's transmission rebuilt for $1300. ($1000 is what shop owner says car is worth - check out shop owner's jacket.) Car dies a few blocks from shop the day he goes to pick it up. He tows it back to the shop, where he says his cousin, who is also a mechanic, catches the shop mechanic fast talking, and they get into it. Mechanic finds and replaces another bad electronic module, and says car runs fine now. Shop wants guy to pay for the additional part and labor - $170. Plaintiff files a better business complaint and small claims case and never goes back to pick up the car. The plaintiff is suing for return of car and wants the $1300 he's paid back. Defendant has countersuit for the $170 in additional work, plus he tacks on $2100 in storage fees. MM rules that plaintiff gets to pick up the car after paying the $170 - no storage fees. After he picks it up he can take it to another shop to have it checked out - remember he never picked it up, so he doesn't even know if it's been fixed. Then, if he finds another shop to says the work is no good, he can come back with a new case to get his money back. Defendant says he thinks the guy abandoned the car because it's a piece of crap, and he's going to slap a lien on it if plaintiff fails to pick it up.

Last case is new house owner saying the previous owner misrepresented condition of house. Previous owner is a flipper who replaced roof, and now patches of shingles are blowing off. Plaintiff brought in inspector, and inspector roof passed inspection. This was an as-is purchase, so plaintiff had no case.

Edited March 18, 2016 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

Guy was receiving section 8 before moving in, lived there 4 years, and says he's back getting assistance in new place

 

It seems to me that nearly every landlord/tenant dispute we see here involves "Sec8". Weary taxpayers must foot the bill for everyone's accomodations and it's forever. I don't know, but if the working population was forking over $500 every month for YEARS for me to live somewhere I kind of think I might not bitch that I'm still owed yet more money. OH, this place was so terrible, so utterly horrible that I only stayed for FOUR years.

 

Roof Lady: How it pisses me off when women put on the "Oh, I can't bother my pretty little head about roofs and all that other man stuff. I"m a girly-girl so what applies to everyone else shouldn't apply to me! Boo hoo!" *sticks finger in dimple and twirls skirt* Get over it, lady. Put your big girl panties on and learn to deal with life.

[cattykit]

FINAL THOUGHT: Guy was receiving section 8 before moving in, lived there 4 years, and says he's back getting assistance in new place. JJ would have wanted to know what this guy was doing with his life, because Byrd is tired of supporting him. Dude, get a job, go to school, do SOMETHING!!!

 

 

Honestly, if the guy had actually won his case, the money should have gone back to Section 8 to offset all the mooching he's already done.  I know it's just me, but if you're reaping any kind of benefits off the teats of those who worked to give you those benefits, any windfalls should go back to said teats first before enriching anyone else.

 

I fight this battle now with my 26 year old daughter who graduated from homelessness (after I stopped subsidizing her life) to being in state-provided housing (and bitching because it's not what she's used to).  All my heartfelt suggestions that she get a fucking life, go back to school, get a job, and support herself so that she can choose her own housing have gone nowhere.  :(

 

And it sure sounded like plaintiff was busy driving his new landlord crazy, since he's already racking up inspection reports and complaints.

[AngelaHunter]

And it sure sounded like plaintiff was busy driving his new landlord crazy, since he's already racking up inspection reports and complaints.

 

You're living for $300 goddam dollars a month. When I use to rent, I think the last time I paid that amount was in 1982. Don't like where you're living? Get a job - get two - and pay your own rent. I understand that might not leave you too much surplus to pay for expensive hair treatments, jewelry etc., but welcome to my world where people pay their own way.

 

By the way, did anyone note where Roof Lady was living that she could buy a renovated house for 69K? I think I might sell my house and move there.

[AZChristian]

No Peoples Court for us until the March Madness is over, apparently.

 

Which TRULY causes March Madness in this non-basketball fan.

[Rick Kitchen]

March Madness is only on Thursdays and Fridays during the week.

[AZChristian]

Thanks, Rick.  I just noticed that it was pre-empting TPC yesterday and today and assumed . . . wrongly . . . that it was all week.  It's bad enough it's pre-empting Amazing Race, but missing out on one of my court shows just added insult to injury!!!!

[guilfoyleatpp]

 

By the way, did anyone note where Roof Lady was living that she could buy a renovated house for 69K? I think I might sell my house and move there.

I should be embarrassed to admit this, but nah.

 

Indiana. 

And this is how I know...Amber from Teen Mom OG bought and renovated a house and sold it for $69k-ish.

[AngelaHunter]

guilfoyleatpp, thanks. I got so curious I had to look up IN real estate. I can't get over how many properties are available for under 100K.

[teebax]

If there ever was a case that needed a judge it was the road rage one. That plaintiff was shady as hell and the good ol boy defendent was naive and stupidly didn't pay his insurance premium. There are too many of these cases where the defendents just don't keep their insurance up to date or don't even bother to get it.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if that plaintiff did the whole thing on purpose so he could sue somebody. Maybe he didn't bring the wife to court because he figured she wasn't a convincing liar.

I put a dash cam in my car, and it's one of the smartest investments I've made. As a recovering insurance agent, I can't tell you how many clients I've seen get completely screwed over by unscrupulous people who think every accident is a windfall.

I paid about $50 for my dash cam. I haven't had an accident yet, but it did help me get out of a bad ticket. I was pulled over for speeding almost immediately after I'd turned out of a Target parking lot. There's no way I could have been speeding since the speed limit was 45 and I'd literally just entered the damn road. Anyway, the cop insisted he'd been watching me speed for several blocks. I tried showing him my Target receipt, which would've proved I'd just left the store, but he wouldn't hear it.

So I challenged the ticket. I took my little usb stick to court and played it for the judge. Turns out, another car 'like' mine had gone very fast past me in the center lane when I pulled out into the right one. That was the car he'd been watching, not mine. Dumb ass.

*When I say a car like mine, I mean my car is a white four door hybrid sedan and the other car is a silver two door convertible coupe. Practically twins, really.

Anyway, if you can swing it, a dash cam is a good investment.

[zillabreeze]

 

Anyway, if you can swing it, a dash cam is a good investment.

I think about it every time someone drifts into my lane while f-ing with their phone, which is about a dozen times a day.

[rcc]

It seems to me that nearly every landlord/tenant dispute we see here involves "Sec8". Weary taxpayers must foot the bill for everyone's accomodations and it's forever. I don't know, but if the working population was forking over $500 every month for YEARS for me to live somewhere I kind of think I might not bitch that I'm still owed yet more money. OH, this place was so terrible, so utterly horrible that I only stayed for FOUR years.

 

Roof Lady: How it pisses me off when women put on the "Oh, I can't bother my pretty little head about roofs and all that other man stuff. I"m a girly-girl so what applies to everyone else shouldn't apply to me! Boo hoo!" *sticks finger in dimple and twirls skirt* Get over it, lady. Put your big girl panties on and learn to deal with life.

I missed the Section 8 case and looked it up on youtube after reading about it here. The plaintiff obviously knows how to work the system and instead of getting a job and paying his own friggin rent he decides to be greedy and drags the defendent into court. I liked what Harvey said for once when he told us that Section 8 fraud is against the law. Bingo! Harvey read this guy and I hope he is held accountable. I know JJ has said that she sends some cases to the proper authorities. I hope People's Court does the same.

[SRTouch]

First case is family from hell feuding and smashing each others cars with bricks and bats. These people all seem to have way too much first hand experience with law enforcement to come to court with zero evidence and expect to win - so I have the feeling they're just entertaining themselves filing these cases. It's just a bonus in their eyes that TPC picked their case, now they get a free lunch and a trip to Conn for the day. It was kind of funny when brother says he doesn't deal drugs, and then admits to 3 or 4 arrests. Mom was just sad - looks like drugs have really done her in. And it sounds like the whole fight started over 5 bucks mom's bf (yep mom has a bf) borrowed from daughter (plaintiff). The real tragedy here is that plaintiff, her two friends and jailbird drug dealing brother - all these people have kids and involve these kids in their craziness.

Next case tenant wants deposit back. Plaintiff has a hard time telling the truth, but he ends up getting most of the deposit back. I really thought he should have gotten everything back. Defendant, the landlord, did a walk through with tenant and wrote out a check returning deposit. Next day he stops payment on check, and now he's arguing that not only is he entitled to keep the deposit, but he wants the $5000 court max.

In the last case a guy wants to be paid because he spent three days cleaning up a neglected yard and owner doesn't want to pay. Not quite as open and shut as it sounded at first, cause his helpers who cut down some of her flower bushes. Now she won't pay because of the damage to the flowers, and plaintiff says she needs to pay or he will be out the (especially after paying his helpers). JM ruled he's responsible for the damage to her landscaping, so he's out of luck.

[AngelaHunter]

Plaintiff has a hard time telling the truth

 

He's lucky that the prissy def. had the video. After admitting he's liar I don't know why he thinks JM would believe anything else he says.

 

There's been "situations" in my family too, in the form of the rare argument. Never have they included fist fights, my addict mother punching me in the face, baseball bats, car vandalism, drug dealing, knives or prison sentences. Good lord. Disgusting.

[SRTouch]

Rerun: Landlord suing tenant from hell, Miss Amy, for rent and damages to a townhouse. Landlord says he gave Miss Amy (which is what he calls her - I imagine he has many other, more colorful, names for her which he realizes are not court appropriate) a break on the deposit when she moved in because of her business card - which lists various humanitarian projects she's alledgedly involved with. Case is very simple - plaintiff (landlord) has before and after pictures, and defendant has nothing but a loud bad attitude. We never got to the back/late rent issue (and paying with bad checks) before defendant was kicked out of court. Case is memorable for a couple reasons. First, this is not the first time plaintiff has taken her to court - they were regulars in housing court. During the eviction process, a housing court judge ordered her out. Then she got an extension and permission to pay rent late every month. And, finally the housing court judge gave tenant three months to leave. (Nothing like giving the tenant plenty of time to plan damage to the property, little things like using buckets instead of one of the two working toilets.) Second memorable thing is that defendant (tenant) was repeatedly cautioned about interrupting testimony, interrupting the judge, and talking directly to plaintiff, and was eventually ordered out of court. 'Course JJ would have had Byrd escort defendant out long before, and Judge Mathis would have laughed and egged her on. I suspect the reason that previous judge gave her so much latitude was that he/she just hoped to get the tenant out of housing court - probably threw a party when they found out case was going to TPC.

FF through second case of pit bull attack on little yappy dog

Last case gf suing ex bf for loans while living together. (Another example of difference between TPC and JJ; JJ wants nothing to do with people suing for loans made "while playing house", and MM wants the juicy details.) Turns out bf lost job when his license was suspended for DUI, and instead of paying his expenses he paying for some expensive self confidence course, Vegas trip, etc. He admits to the loan, but says he found out that after the breakup she almost immediately had a new bf. Defendant has no defense, has to pay. In hallterview, defendant admits to still love plaintiff, just not in same way, while plaintiff is over with him.

Edited March 22, 2016 by SRTouch