The People's Court - General Discussion

[SRTouch]

First case roommates in dueling lawsuites. Plaintiff is suing ex roommate she was subletting a room. She says he was a slob, who once got drunk and went around to her guests, including her parents, saying he had a naked girls in his room and asking for condoms. She asked him to leave, and he happily moved out faster than she asked. Now she's suing because he left without paying his share of the utilities. Of course he has a different version. He says he wasn't too happy there. First off, he says his room was ground zero for a terrible odor. Plaintiff admits terminators had come in and says there may have been a decomposing critter somewhere in the walls. He also complained that when she lost her job she started renting her room to Airbnb  customers and sleeping on the couch. So he lost the use of the common areas he was renting because she was camped in the living room. Also, part of the draw for Airbnb customers was the garden, which could only be accessed through a third roommate's room, and that third roommate wrote a letter to the court about how unhappy he was to have strangers using his room as a hallway. Anyway, now that the plaintiff is suing him, he decides to sue because he feels she breached their rental agreement bringing in these Airbnb customers in and depriving him of the use of the common areas. He was willing to call it a wash until she sued him. MM decides plaintiff should have kept her mouth shut. She rules the defendant does in fact owe $130 in utilities, but she owes $770 for breaching the rental agreement.

Note: Ok, unsophisticated me had to look up Airbnb. For anyone else who doesn't  know, Airbnb is room or house rentals for people who need short term living accommodations, but don't want to stay in a hotel.

second case: silly case. Plaintiff suing because she hired a limo service to transport her daughter's wedding party and guests around. She was renting two separate limos, and had separate contracts for each. One contract went off without a hitch, but the second limo flaked out and left some wedding guests scrambling to find alternate transportation, ending up being late to wedding. Limo service owner doesn't bother to come to court, instead sending driver who actually showed and fulfilled one contract. MM wasn't happy the owner wasn't in court, and actually ruled plaintiff wasn't asking for as much as she deserved. Plaintiff wanted $700 of the $1400 she was charged, reasoning that while guests had to find alternate transportation to the wedding, the limo did get them back to the hotel afterwards. MM said $700 wasn't enough, and she decided to award $1000. Then it comes out that limo driver, who actually showed up and did his part, was tipped in the contract, but owner pocketed the $150 tip and stiffed his driver. MM pointed out that was illegal, and advised the driver to go after the owner for the tip. As the driver was leaving he said he would probably lose his job, but that it was a part time job anyway.

Last case: silly woman helps baby daddy pay his traffic fines so he won't spend Christmas in jail. She is smart enough to get defendant to son a IOU providing he pay no later than Jan 1st. Defendant has no defense, or many defenses, depending on how you look at things. He says the iou was signed under duress. What duress? He says he was going to jail if he didn't pay his fine. Nope, that defense is out. He tries to say she filed papers before note was due because she suspected he was seeing another woman. Nope, she filed after the New Years. Then he says he shouldn't have to pay because he has given her money in the past without asking for repayment. Nope, that defense doesn't work. Last ditch defense, he shouldn't have to pay because she harassed him looking for her money. Personally, I think anyone who tries this defense without proof of real harrassment should pay double or triple for wasting the court's time - besides the mother of his son is only asking for $160 at Christmas. 

[cattykit]

The first case is that case that someone (sorry, can't remember who) posted a link to a few months back, where the plaintiff felt she got screwed by the whole process.  Can't find the original article but they reposted it on Yahoo.  I thought the particulars sounded familiar and I looked it up and sure enough, that's her. 

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Plaintiff is suing ex roommate she was subletting a room. 

I don't know if he did or didn't ask guests for condoms, but as the story came out, I saw why JM didn't find for the plaintiff although she was totally sympathetic at first. To me, renting out rooms in your home to strangers is nutty, but even so if I were renting a room from someone I would not be pleased at a stream of strangers filing in and out of the home. Of course, I also wouldn't spend months in a place reeking of decomposing flesh, but that's just me.

Quote

silly woman helps baby daddy pay his traffic fines so he won't spend Christmas in jail.

I don't know, but I think if my partner and baby daddy told me he was going to jail, I might ask why. Well, actually I'd freak out but as we know, most of the litigants we see feel going to jail is just a ho-hum, every day normal part of life. Anyway, I can see why the plaintiff was so jealous of that desirable hunk of man she had. I'm sure other women were clamoring for his company and whatever else he has to offer which I'm sure is a lot. Advice: Don't hook up with a man that every other woman wants. Ex-cons (who can't scrape up 160$) are hot!

[ElleMo]

8 hours ago, cattykit said:

The first case is that case that someone (sorry, can't remember who) posted a link to a few months back, where the plaintiff felt she got screwed by the whole process.  Can't find the original article but they reposted it on Yahoo.  I thought the particulars sounded familiar and I looked it up and sure enough, that's her. 

I was under the impression that the pot was more than $500.  It's so not worth $500 to go on the show

[Rowsdower]

On 4/29/2016 at 5:14 PM, cattykit said:

The first case is that case that someone (sorry, can't remember who) posted a link to a few months back, where the plaintiff felt she got screwed by the whole process.  Can't find the original article but they reposted it on Yahoo.  I thought the particulars sounded familiar and I looked it up and sure enough, that's her. 

Even if some of the footage was cut, her account doesn't jibe with what was included in the broadcast.

But I doubt very much that any misleading editing occurred.  Having attended multiple tapings (dozens of cases, in total) over the years, I've observed no such thing.  Edits are made to excise long periods of silence (arising primarily when Judge Milian reads the paperwork – which, if anything, she examines too meticulously), production-related interruptions, etc.  I've seldom noticed the omission of anything more substantive than coughing or sneezing, let alone something materially relevant to the proceedings.  I find it exceedingly unlikely that this individual was singled out for bizarre mistreatment.

[SRTouch]

first case: is girl suing hairdresser because she's unhappy with her dreadlocks. Case itself was funny because of how ridiculous the girl's claims were. A big part of her claim was that she's a model, and she lost income because of the terrible hairdo. She's a model and is in court suing for a terrible dread' job - but doesn't have a single picture of herself!?! Under questioning she admits that she has never actually been paid to model, but wants the judge to take her word that she would have been paid 2.5k with a good hairdo. Another part of her claim is that the hairdresser used some illegal tool to tie her hair. I have a hard time believing a legislative body has so much that that they can debate and pass a law governing how to tie hair extensions.  I have to be wrong, though, because her witness claims to have gone to school to learn how to put in dreadlocks  and he swears it's illegal. Ummm, if witness/husband has been to school to learn how to do dreadlocks, why is plaintiff  going to defendant to get her hair done? Defendant really didn't need to say anything to win the case, but MM wanted to see a demonstration of the evil tool. To me, it simply looked like a plastic crochet needle. Plaintiff loses case, and finally has to pay defendant for hairdo. Final question, anyone have any idea what plaintiff's witness/husband was saying in hallterview - or if he was even speaking English?

second case is tenant suing landlord over deposit. This is one of those cases where both sides are wrong, know they're wrong, and are wasting the court's time. Landlord in the wrong because he's charging the guy for utilities, but not paying the utility company. MM catches landlord in first lie. Lots of contentious back and forth via text, which MM has fun reading us. Tenant moves out, and landlord won't show for exit walk through. Tenant doesn't trust guy to return deposit, so he takes some of landlord's property, including a surfboard, as collateral. Tenant starts out trying to claim he accidently took the property, but text messages so he was purposely holding the stuff hostage. More childish texts back and forth, and eventually they're in court entertaining America. MM orders return of property from tenant and return of deposit from landlord.

Third case dude suing houseguest/friend because he says guy overloaded his washing machine, and now won't pay to replace it. Defendant is like Sgt Schultz from Hogan's Heroes - he knows nothing about machine, and denies ever staying there, or even using the machine. Plaintiff has funny video complete with sound effects, but zip for evidence. Guy hasn't even had someone check the machine to see what's wrong - hell, I doubt he's checked to see if a circuit breaker has been flipped, or if there's  a reset button or procedure to go through if it doesn't come on as with most modern machines. Case dismissed

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

is girl suing hairdresser because she's unhappy with her dreadlocks.

The slow-thinking "model", who has never modeled, lost imaginary modeling jobs because her dreads weren't right? That's worth 2500$ on some planet. Funniest part was her little, yappy, hyper hubby who thought if he repeated himself enough times he could get JM on his side. I'm sure she appreciated him so helpfully telling her that there's nothing else to talk about. Using a hair pick is against the law! Plaintiff had evidence proving that, but not on her "at this time."

Quote

second case is tenant suing landlord over deposit.

It was distasteful, watching two grown men who seemed to have some intelligence, carrying on like school children. "You took my surfboard!" "You've got my money!" "I know you are, but what am I?" Ugh.

Quote

dude suing houseguest/friend because he says guy overloaded his washing machine

Dumb, stupid case. Jerome says, "We met while we was in college." Really, Jerome? College? "WE WAS." Double UGH. Never mind the eyebrow shaping and silly vid audios - get yourself to an English class, pronto.

[AZChristian]

I turned on closed captioning to see what the pipsqueak was saying at the end of the first case.  He was saying, "She's lucky I'M not suing her" (like it was a threat).  And when Curt asked about the mirrors, pipsqueak said, "There were four walls of mirrors in the salon, and she turned her around to face the window."  (Apparently the salon is in the shape of a pentagon, or the pipsqueak is an idiot.  Pick one.)

He sounded like he was talking with his teeth clenched together so his grill wouldn't fall out.

[cattykit]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Dumb, stupid case. Jerome says, "We met while we was in college." Really, Jerome? College? "WE WAS." Double UGH. Never mind the eyebrow shaping and silly vid audios - get yourself to an English class, pronto.

I kept seeing Groucho Marx in those eyebrows.  People pay money for this??  And yes, I heard the same "we was" and had the same thought.  But getting into some kind of college these days pretty much only requires a pulse and a payment source.

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

I turned on closed captioning to see what the pipsqueak was saying at the end of the first case.  He was saying, "She's lucky I'M not suing her" (like it was a threat).  And when Curt asked about the mirrors, pipsqueak said, "There were four walls of mirrors in the salon, and she turned her around to face the window."  (Apparently the salon is in the shape of a pentagon, or the pipsqueak is an idiot.  Pick one.)

He sounded like he was talking with his teeth clenched together so his grill wouldn't fall out.

I always watch this show with the CC on.  I'm tired of trying to translate English into English.  I feel sorry for the poor closed captioning transcriptionists.  Sometimes they just leave stuff blank rather than injure their heads beating them against the wall trying to decipher mumblemouths and grammar disasters. 

I just loved him yelling out, first that the little crochet hook was illegal, and when MM was having none of that, that it was a CRIME.  And insisting on educating MM on the law.  Something can be illegal (like renting out a non-standard apartment because it violates an ordinance) but that doesn't make it a crime.  Contracts, torts and criminal procedure were three different classes in law school, IIRC.  Speaking of torts, I can't believe we went a whole day without someone suing for emotional distress.  I wish MM would run a 30 second PSA at the end of her show, explaining why these petty civil cases almost never qualify under the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.  And how she's never going to award lost wages for coming to court, so stop asking for them.

Edited May 3, 2016 by cattykit

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

 I'm tired of trying to translate English into English. 

As am I. I remember one case, I think on JJ, where the show had to put captions under a litigant who was speaking ENGLISH. This is how bad things have become.

Quote

I turned on closed captioning to see what the pipsqueak was saying at the end of the first case.

PIPSQUEAK. Damn, I just inhaled crumbs from my cereal bar.

[SRTouch]

FIRST CASE:  momma suing daddy because she feels he tricked her into paying more than half of the adult son's DUI bail. Mom and Dad have been divorced 20 years, Dad raised sonny boy, and Mom owes over 20k in back child support. Now she's suing Dad for $200 she contributed for sonny's bail? And, she has Pops down as a$$hole for his contact in her phone. I wonder what her contact name is in HIS phone. Anyway, MM reads her the riot act and dismisses the case. 

And what's up with 22yo Sonny Boy anyway? Maybe he's a struggling student? No, they agree Sonny is working, in fact I seem to recall both saying he's doing good, so I think they would have been bragging if he was in college. Why couldn't he come up with a measly couple hundred bucks to pay the bondsman? Wonder who will pay his fines, classes, increased insurance etc - DUI's ain't cheap. 

SECOND CASE:  Homeowner suing contractor over chimney/foundation work he claims is substandard. Contractor has a countersuit for tools left on site after being was kicked off job. Contractor is a friend of a friend just starting his own company. When homeowner sees a problem, he stops work and negotiates a settlement to get part of the already paid money back. Since the contractor didn't live up to the settlement agreement, now homeowner wants back every penny. Job started with a partial contract, but homeowner wised up and got the settlement in writing. Contractor does a lot of heming and hawing about whether or not he's licensed, or even needs to be licensed. Back and forth claims in court, with contractor claiming he was coerced into signing settlement by the little bitty homeowner and his big bad dog. But wait, homeowner taped the conversation, and after playing tape contractor is left with egg on his face. When we get to the countersuit, homeowner is caught lying to the judge (but he DOES apologize). Eventually, MM gets tired of the lies and enforces the agreed upon settlement.

 LAST CASE:  Author of "how to" book pays dude to record her book so she can market it as an audio book online. After multiple attempts fail to produce a usable product, she's suing to get her money back. Defendant says it was a work in progress, and she pulled out before it was done. Really just a simple contract case. Plaintiff provided a contract which specified the requirements needed to sell the book over Amazon. Defendant repeatedly gave her "finished products" which failed to meet the standards specified in the contract. Guess he thought he could keep tweaking his "finished product" and eventually it would be "good enough". Not "good," but "good enough" not to be rejected. Plaintiff got tired of receiving "finished products" which failed to meet the standards, so wants her money back. Judge agrees, defendant failed to deliver, and is ordered to return money.

[teebax]

20 hours ago, AZChristian said:

I turned on closed captioning to see what the pipsqueak was saying at the end of the first case.  He was saying, "She's lucky I'M not suing her" (like it was a threat).  And when Curt asked about the mirrors, pipsqueak said, "There were four walls of mirrors in the salon, and she turned her around to face the window."  (Apparently the salon is in the shape of a pentagon, or the pipsqueak is an idiot.  Pick one.)

He sounded like he was talking with his teeth clenched together so his grill wouldn't fall out.

I couldn't figure out how you wouldn't feel that tool poking into your head. Such a freaking scam artist. And then to never complain and just file a lawsuit? Yeah, that's not suspicious at all. Modeling my ass. I've never considered modeling and I have hundreds of pictures of myself. I don't even like getting my picture taken and still manage to be in tons of pictures. She doesn't have a Facebook wall? 

I wish MM had laid into her a lot more. I freaking hate scammers, especially when they target small business owners.

[cattykit]

Not sure why, SRTouch, but I'm seeing a completely different episode today than you are.

[momtoall]

Quote

Not sure why, SRTouch, but I'm seeing a completely different episode today than you are.

I got a different episode also.  One case involved a contractor who was supposed to build a fence for the plaintiff but he didn't get to it in one and a half years.  The contractor was a piece work.  He had a number of excuses but no reasonable answer for why he never completed the job. 

[AngelaHunter]

I saw completely different eps than SRTouch as well. I got the furnace/tenant case, where all parties were immensely unlikable and none of them could STFU and kept talking over JM.

Then the idiot condo owner, who is head of the condo association, casually mentions in the hall that he had no idea of the rules and regulations. I'm not suprised since he can barely speak the language. Plaintiff wanted thousands for medical bills but had no proof she needs future treatment other than something is wrong with her hip but she doesn't  know what.

JM despised the smarmy, belligerent crook of a fence contractor and with good reason. He probably thought he could rip off some little woman and get away with it. His most important evidence that he'd ordered the supplies? He filed them and couldn't be bothered moving his ass to look for them. Best part was him expecting plaintiff to pay for his property when the storage lot sold it because he doesn't pay his bills. He had 2K of plaintiff's money - could have paid the bill with that.

[SRTouch]

5 hours ago, cattykit said:

Not sure why, SRTouch, but I'm seeing a completely different episode today than you are.

I bet I got to see tomorrow's episode today. It's happened before, and I bet tomorrow I see a repeat of what I watched today.?

Edited May 4, 2016 by SRTouch
Spelling

[cattykit]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Then the idiot condo owner, who is head of the condo association, casually mentions in the hall that he had no idea of the rules and regulations. I'm not suprised since he can barely speak the language. Plaintiff wanted thousands for medical bills but had no proof she needs future treatment other than something is wrong with her hip but she doesn't  know what.

JM despised the smarmy, belligerent crook of a fence contractor and with good reason. He probably thought he could rip off some little woman and get away with it. His most important evidence that he'd ordered the supplies? He filed them and couldn't be bothered moving his ass to look for them. Best part was him expecting plaintiff to pay for his property when the storage lot sold it because he doesn't pay his bills. He had 2K of plaintiff's money - could have paid the bill with that.

I wasn't sure what to make of the condo tripping case.  At first I was wondering how this lady could blame the owner for her injuries because stuff happens.  IANAL, so I don't know why the rule in the CCR about no commercial vehicles really was relevant to the case.  If they had been allowed, and the lady tripped under the exact same circumstances, then the owner wouldn't have been responsible even though the facts of the case would be identical?  And why is there no mention of the tenant's responsibility?  But then I wondered if this lady was injured as badly as she claims, why she would be taking this to small claims court.  An injury that's potentially going to require surgery and significant rehab is going to cost a lot more than $5K in the long run.  And it sucks that her HMO is refusing to pay for her care.  I can say it because I used to work for a major HMO -- they are vultures. 

Fence contractor was infuriating.  He was divided in three parts, gall, gall, and gall.

7 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

I bet I got to see tomorrow's episode today. It'seemed happened before, and I bet tomorrow I see a repeat of what I watched today.?

Well, good, I'll be looking at your today recap tomorrow.  I've gotten spoiled now to where I come here for the Cliff Notes version as I watch.  I don't even have to pay attention any more, just follow along with the recap.   :)

[SRTouch]

20 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I saw completely different eps than SRTouch as well. I got the furnace/tenant case, where all parties were immensely unlikable and none of them could STFU and kept talking over JM.

Good news (for me anyway) today I got yesterday's episode, and I watched today's yesterday. Somebody alert Sheldon Cooper I've experienced time travel.

20 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Then the idiot condo owner, who is head of the condo association, casually mentions in the hall that he had no idea of the rules and regulations. I'm not suprised since he can barely speak the language. Plaintiff wanted thousands for medical bills but had no proof she needs future treatment other than something is wrong with her hip but she doesn't  know what.

JM despised the smarmy, belligerent crook of a fence contractor and with good reason. He probably thought he could rip off some little woman and get away with it. His most important evidence that he'd ordered the supplies? He filed them and couldn't be bothered moving his ass to look for them. Best part was him expecting plaintiff to pay for his property when the storage lot sold it because he doesn't pay his bills. He had 2K of plaintiff's money - could have paid the bill with that.

Worse part of fence contractor case was his countersuit. He has the gall to expect her to storage fees on materials he has no evidence he ever ordered. And if they were ordered, they should have been installed over a year ago. AND if they ever existed, he says they were auctioned off when he didn't pay the storage fees - yeah Dave Hester probably bought that locker.

[teebax]

20 hours ago, cattykit said:

I wasn't sure what to make of the condo tripping case.  At first I was wondering how this lady could blame the owner for her injuries because stuff happens.  IANAL, so I don't know why the rule in the CCR about no commercial vehicles really was relevant to the case.  If they had been allowed, and the lady tripped under the exact same circumstances, then the owner wouldn't have been responsible even though the facts of the case would be identical?  And why is there no mention of the tenant's responsibility?  But then I wondered if this lady was injured as badly as she claims, why she would be taking this to small claims court.  An injury that's potentially going to require surgery and significant rehab is going to cost a lot more than $5K in the long run.  And it sucks that her HMO is refusing to pay for her care.  I can say it because I used to work for a major HMO -- they are vultures. 

I didn't understand how the injury occurred either. I wished JM had dug into the defendant's claim that the plaintiff had already sued everyone else and lost. I know it shouldn't affect her ability to sue him, but I wanted to hear more about her other suits. I felt for the defendant because it doesn't sound like he knew what was going on at his property. Yes, he still has liability, but I would have advised him to sue his tenant for the loss. 

And, I agree; HMOs suck. They're fine for routine visits and such but for anything major it's a hassle. I worked for one years ago and their procedure was ta automatically deny the first claim. I guess the theory was that many people would give up and not fight. I had to get out of that place quickly!

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

[AngelaHunter]

This format sucks. Never start a post and then discard it. You can't get rid of it. At least I can't.

Anyway, I must be clairvoyant because even before JM mentioned it, I somehow knew that in the case of "Donte likes to drive drunk and can't bail his own ass out jail" that mom had never paid child support or cared for the kid she had because she spent his whole life doing drugs. Drugs are expensive, you know, and if you have to choose where to spend your money, well - the kid lost.  Her nerve in asking for $200 when she owes 21K is off the scale. I was glad JM called her a "deadbeat."

Then we had the shifty little weasel who hired those dopey bozos to do construction work for him. How cute when he had to say, "I'm a liar but I apologize for it." What, did he lie by accident? Yeah, I bet he has a huge dog. His type always does.

What a breath of fresh air with the audiobook case. Plaintiff was articulate, clear, concise, personable and had all her evidence neatly catalogued. It was a pleasure to listen to her. Orlando, on the other hand, can't be bothered to keep his evidence and the email proving his case? Well, he just deleted it, but I'm sure it existed. He did something we know JM just loves by informing her of what was relevant and what was not.

Edited May 4, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[DoctorK]

Quote

Orlando, on the other hand, can't be bothered to keep his evidence and the email proving his case?

What struck me was that what kind of studio professional can't deal with 60 hz hum, the bane of audio since the invention of wire recorders? How can you keep operating a recording studio with a fluorescent light that puts hum into your recording gear and not fix it? Something here doesn't smell right.

[momtoall]

Quote

What a breath of fresh air with the audiobook case. Plaintiff was articulate, clear, concise, personable and had all her evidence neatly catalogued. It was a pleasure to listen to her.

IKR!!  I was thrilled to see a case where the litigant was "normal".  She paid for a service, she didn't get what she paid for so she wanted her money back.  Not $5000 because her life was ruined, no breaking out the windows of his studio/house/car, no police reports of weapons drawn, just a simple give me what I paid you and I'll move on.  So refreshing...

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Not $5000 because her life was ruined, no breaking out the windows of his studio/house/car, no police reports of weapons drawn, just a simple give me what I paid you and I'll move on.  So refreshing...

Right! No pain and suffering, no money for her time wasted (which it was) and not even a physical altercation. I loved her!

Quote

How can you keep operating a recording studio with a fluorescent light that puts hum into your recording gear and not fix it?

I know nothing of the tech side of that, but if your lighting ruins - three times! -  what should be a professional recording session, and you have no clue how to fix it you might be in the wrong business.

Edited May 5, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[teebax]

14 hours ago, momtoall said:

IKR!!  I was thrilled to see a case where the litigant was "normal".  She paid for a service, she didn't get what she paid for so she wanted her money back.  Not $5000 because her life was ruined, no breaking out the windows of his studio/house/car, no police reports of weapons drawn, just a simple give me what I paid you and I'll move on.  So refreshing...

TBT, I loved both of these litigants, even the one who was wrong. It was a joy to hear them speak. Yes, the defendant is a terrible sound engineer, but he spoke well, too, and seemed to have evidence he thought would support his case.

Isn't it sad that it happens so infrequently we all comment on it when it does? Based on the behavior I see on court shows, I think the new normal is to be inarticulate, grammatically challenged, and sue for the max regardless of damages.

It's also apparently normal to have tattoos all over one's chest and/or neck. Who knew that by not getting any tattoos I was being a rebel? :-)

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Isn't it sad that it happens so infrequently we all comment on it when it does?

It's tragic and infuriating that we have to rush here to wax eloquent over the fact that someone can actually speak his/her own language without mangling it beyond recongnition.

Quote

Who knew that by not getting any tattoos I was being a rebel?

Paying your bills and working for a living would make you a rebel, if not an outcast, in the eyes of these people. "She thinks she's so fancy," as I once heard a loser for life say about about a member of her family who, in an uprecedented and shocking breech of family tradition, went and got a J-O-B.

[arejay]

Watching section-8 scammy guy now.  What in the wide wide world of sports is on that woman's face?

[AngelaHunter]

That was fun. First we had Stephen King's long-lost son in a really bad wig suing a cheap Howard Stern knock-off. Both were so annoying, yet so entertaining I didn't care who was right or wrong.

The woman beating the hyper, giggling handyman out of his money was pretty despicable. 35$/hr for a handyman? Don't think so. But really - I had some work done outside awhile back - removing and resetting flagstones, taking down a few small trees, topsoil and large decorative boulders placed - 3000$, and I felt that was a good price. I hope the giggler has learned a lesson, because I believe he did say, "Whatever you think it's worth." Bet he never thought she would say, "Sorry, ti's worth nothing." Oh and her countersuit for storing his "rotillary." Yeah, sure. That wall alone, if done by professionals, would have cost over 5K.

I kind of wish I hadn't seen Wasim the scammer/liar, who has the taxpayers dig a little deeper in their pockets to pay his rent, since his back hurts, precluding him from earning a living of any kind. My back has hurt all my life, sometimes badly, yet it never occured to me to try and get strangers to support me. He has no money, yet can get all kinds of bizarre piercings, jewelry and multi-coloured dreads. That's not bad enough, but he's also renting a room to someone, so his Sec8 is a profitable enterprise. Nice how governments are so free and easy with our money. His deadened, creepy stare at JM was unsettling. Must be all that medication he takes, which causes him to punch holes in doors yet not remember anything. HIs friend? Made me think they were heading off to a Halloween party after the show.

[cattykit]

19 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

That was fun. First we had Stephen King's long-lost son in a really bad wig suing a cheap Howard Stern knock-off. Both were so annoying, yet so entertaining I didn't care who was right or wrong.

The woman beating the hyper, giggling handyman out of his money was pretty despicable. 35$/hr for a handyman? Don't think so. But really - I had some work done outside awhile back - removing and resetting flagstones, taking down a few small trees, topsoil and large decorative boulders placed - 3000$, and I felt that was a good price. I hope the giggler has learned a lesson, because I believe he did say, "Whatever you think it's worth." Bet he never thought she would say, "Sorry, ti's worth nothing." Oh and her countersuit for storing his "rotillary." Yeah, sure. That wall alone, if done by professionals, would have cost over 5K.

I kind of wish I hadn't seen Wasim the scammer/liar, who has the taxpayers dig a little deeper in their pockets to pay his rent, since his back hurts, precluding him from earning a living of any kind. My back has hurt all my life, sometimes badly, yet it never occured to me to try and get strangers to support me. He has no money, yet can get all kinds of bizarre piercings, jewelry and multi-coloured dreads. That's not bad enough, but he's also renting a room to someone, so his Sec8 is a profitable enterprise. Nice how governments are so free and easy with our money. His deadened, creepy stare at JM was unsettling. Must be all that medication he takes, which causes him to punch holes in doors yet not remember anything. HIs friend? Made me think they were heading off to a Halloween party after the show.

Thanks for the warning, AngelaHunter.  I turned it off.  My back hurts too much to sit through that case.  Silly me, though, I went to work today.

The first case was different, I'll give it that.  The radio conversation was painful to listen to, not the least bit entertaining or amusing, and I guess it typifies the shock jock mentality that lives on talk radio.  Who would go to work for two years without any kind of written confirmation of paid employment and then expect to get paid?  I don't have a contract at my job, but I did get an offer letter with a stated salary.

The second case was like cramming six different types of TPC cases into one.  No contract, no receipts, no proof of payment, no evidence of faulty labor, no proof that it cost her money to store the rototiller, no remorse for stiffing the plaintiff.  And why MM didn't tell the defendant it's a rototiller--I guess she figured it would do no good.  I swear these people just watch enough law shows to pick out the parts they like, such as asking for punitive damages or emotional distress or storage fees, and discard the rest, like where you have to bring evidence and prove what you're talking about.

[SRTouch]

To start the day off, the first two cases are guys who claim to have worked (years in 1st case and months in 2nd) without a contract and now what to be paid. FIRST CASE: dude with Howard Stern look wants to be paid for 2 years of co-hosting on talk radio show. Defendant says, yeah dude co-hosted, but there was never an agreement to pay him. He says it's common for on-air personalities to get their money from advertising. In the end, decision is the guy should have demanded a contract or wages long before working for 2 years, and was free to quit at any time. Case was laughable.

SECOND CASE : Again, we have guy working, this time for months, without pay. This time it's a handyman-type who does a lot of work with the understanding that homeowner/defendant will "pay him what she feels is fair". Turns out the good Christian lady wearing a cross around her neck feels it's fair to pay for materials and nothing for his labor. She claims she actually paid a lot more, but in small installments. The only payment she can prove is the $300 plaintiff agrees she paid for materials. If we forget everything else he says he did, he installed almost 90 feet of a cement block retaining wall. To cap off the deal, woman wants to charge storage because he kept some tools, mainly a tiller, on site while he was working - not that he left it there after he quit, but stuff he was using while working. MM did some rough jystice, and awarded the guy $1500 for his estimated 70 hours of work.

THIRD CASE: SECTION 8 dude suing for security deposit after eviction after 8 years yada yada yada. This is the dude with various piercings and girlfriend/witness has even more facial piercings and funny purple hat thingy on side of her head to go with colorful extensions hanging down to waist. After last case with defendant lady with cross necklace prominently displayed, I can't help but wonder if the necklaces worn by these two has any meaning. Anyway, plaintiff on this case has been living on disability and getting section 8 assistance the entire eight years he's lived there. Now he's being evicted because landlord found out he's been illegally subletting a room. Now after appealing the eviction and being granted additional time to move, he wants his deposit back. He denies subletting to anyone, but defendant has evidence his "tenant" provided her (and she says was forwarded to section 8). Nobody gets anything - he loses because of his lies about subletting, landlord get to keep deposit, but nothing more after 8 years of wear and tear.

Final thought: I have to wonder if his chronic back pain might be partially relieved with proper shoes and if he didn't have hair braided almost to his waist.

Edited May 5, 2016 by SRTouch
Correction

[SRTouch]

Oops, guess I just provided a second recap?after wasting too much time at the doctors office. Tried to go back and edit my recap, but for some odd reason sometime I can edit a post, and sometimes not.

Hmmmmmm, interesting. I failed repeatedly trying to edit from the tablet, yet had no problem editing from the phone - let's see what happens editing this time from the tablet (yes I should probably just get up and try from the desktop in the office, but then I'd disturb Silly Cat).

Edited May 6, 2016 by SRTouch
Crazy keyboard

[OhioSongbird]

Section 8 guy in the Herman Munster shoes was a piece of work.  Guarantee he and permanent bitch-face girlfriend have been milking the system for a long time in other ways as well ( and yeah....what the hell was up with all the piercings on both of them).  We used to have (notice the past tense) a couple of rental properties (one a duplex and a small house) and rented once to two ladies with kids on Section 8.  Disaster.....trashed their place, broke into my place (bottom floor, they were upstairs) and stole stuff, threw dirty Pampers out the upstairs kitchen window not to mention the difficulty of getting my rent on time.  Took me forever to get them out.  I know there a lot of good tenants on Sec 8.  We sure didn't get one and we were done with renting and haven't missed it since.

I learned something today.....didn't know dogs could get Lyme disease but it makes sense.  I pick ticks off my dog all the time....we live in the country.

[patty1h]

Hey, did Kurt quit or retire?  Mike Woods, who is the weatherman from my local Fox channel is doing hallway duty.  Did I miss an announcement?

Edited May 6, 2016 by patty1h

[cattykit]

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

Hey, did Kurt quit or retire?  Mike Woods, who is the weatherman from my local Fox channel is doing hallway duty.  Did I miss an announcement?

Sure looked and sounded like Curt to me.

A dog case just for you, AngelaHunter.  And as usual, an unrepentant pit bull owner, although she claimed they weren't her dogs because she inherited them from her dead brother.  I guess he was supposed to make sure they stayed in their own yard.

I love MM but I'm tired of her lectures about family.  Not every family is meant to be lovey-dovey and joined at the hip and donate a kidney.  If I never see my sister again, it will be too soon.  Some people just swam in the same gene pool, and that's not always enough, when there's enough history.

Edited May 6, 2016 by cattykit

[AngelaHunter]

Lakeema, I'm with you. I've had "discrepinations" with my sister, too. Luckily, that never prompted me to threaten to destroy her home and everything she owns, but each ot his own. I have no idea of much of what the sister said, since she spoke so rapidly that her mouth was actually a blur on my screen a couple of times. I really wish JM would stop her "Let's all love each other" pep talks. Surely she has better use for her breath than wasting it this way.

I had to turn off the last case, with the jailbird plainitff with the outlandish wig, who moved in with some guy she hooked up with online. I just couldn't take it. Any of it.

Quote

A dog case just for you, AngelaHunter.

Posted at the same time. I didn't watch that either.

Edited May 6, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[teebax]

17 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Lakeema, I'm with you. I've had "discrepinations" with my sister, too. Luckily, that never prompted me to threaten to destroy her home and everything she owns, but each ot his own. I have no idea of much of what the sister said, since she spoke so rapidly that her mouth was actually a blur on my screen a couple of times. I really wish JM would stop her "Let's all love each other" pep talks. Surely she has better use for her breath than wasting it this way.

I had to turn off the last case, with the jailbird plainitff with the outlandish wig, who moved in with some guy she hooked up with online. I just couldn't take it. Any of it.

Posted at the same time. I didn't watch that either.

So she did say "discrepinations." We were trying to figure out what she said then trying to figure out what she meant. Good grief.

[Brooklynista]

3 hours ago, teebax said:

So she did say "discrepinations." We were trying to figure out what she said then trying to figure out what she meant. Good grief.

JM raised an eyebrow at that one and just decided it was best to let it go.

[DoctorK]

Quote

JM raised an eyebrow at that one and just decided it was best to let it go.

I think that JM and JJ do this a lot. The pathetic people we see most often are beyond redemption, drowning in ignorance, entitllement and illiteracy.

P.S. I was tempted to mispell illiteracy just so you guys could laugh at me.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

I think that JM and JJ do this a lot.

They used to do it a lot more, and still sometimes do if they think the litigant has the brain cells to benefit from it. Sadly, such litigants are a rarity. I remember JM trying to teach a "model" how to say "specific" one syllable at a time and getting back "pacific" each time in reply. She gave up. That word must be a pet peeve of hers.

She had no idea what "discrepinations" was supposed to be or mean so couldn't correct it, instead contenting herself with trying to control her laughter.

[OhioSongbird]

Being a grammar/spelling nerd (thank you Mrs. Schnier & Mrs. Kimmel) I love it when litigants mangle the English.  No shit....I read the dictionary for fun....I told you I was nerd.  Missed the 'discrepinations" ep.  One of the funniest mangles I ever heard was in real life at a bus stop.  Gal behind me talking to her friend said "You think she would have more 'considerancy'"  We still use that today.

My eps are all over the place here but I enjoy reading about eps before I see them so I know what to look for.  Hubby doesn't get my love for JM & JJ but I always have loved law/politics (ain't we got a goodie this year...comics are in hog heaven) and seriously considered going to law school.

[BubblingKettle]

I was wishing that the Little Woman of Hollywood (or whatever she called herself) had gone on Judge Judy instead of The People's Court. She really needed to be told to stop the act in a "This isn't an audition, and I already have the job" type of way. (When she squealed at the prospect of the step stool, when she childishly said "BOOOOM," and when she said "uno day," I almost punched something.) A "Do not use the word Like" would have worked well, too. Her excuse was shit, and she completely treated her husband poorly on TV.

I say this as an advocate of people with disabilities -- just because you are different in size/shape/mobility style, it doesn't mean you have to present yourself in a juvenile way if your cognitive skills enable you to act in an age-appropriate way. Then again, maybe she was acting that way to manipulate the judge....I don't know what she acts like on her show.

[cattykit]

I could not believe Curt used the line "a little problem" in his intro to the first case.  I had no idea who those women were but clearly they were ready for their closeup, and it didn't help that MM essentially gave them a 15-second promo.  Glad they lost on the merits of the case.

[SRTouch]

First case: Yet another fender bender, and of course litigants have completely different versions of the accident. The thing that makes this case stand out is that defendant is "little person" quasi celebrity star of a reality TV show, "Little women of LA". MM claims to recognize Christy (Gibel here, but goes by McGinity on tv), but I had never heard of the show. Don't know if MM actually recognized her or if that was just the simplest way to acknowledge her pseudo-celebrity and get on with TPC. Christy's testimony reminded me of Adam West's batman with the sound effects. It's a she said she said she said she said (2 women drivers and 2 women passengers) - no police report or independent witnesses. Everybody agrees Christy is making a right turn in front of plaintiff without coming to a complete stop at the light. Plaintiff was driving 16 yo car with liability insurance, Christy's insurance is lapsed. Plaintiff wants more than her car is worth. MM awards her the value of the car. 

Second case: videographer suing customer because customer won't pay balance. Defendant, the customer, says when he asked plaintiff to make some changes he refused and had a temper tantrum. Turns out they agreed to a $500 fee, with half up front. They spent a day filming, and defendant isn'the happy and want to reshoot everything. Plaintiff agrees to reshoot the video, but says he'll need to be paid for the wasted day. MM likes the video and postpones a judgement, sending them off for a month to see if videographer can edit the video and make defendant happy. After the edit everyone is happy.

THIRD CASE:  Plaintiff suing his ex live in gf over rent money he says he gave her to give to landlord. He says she never paid the rent, and they ended up being evicted. She says he got physical (she claims he held a knife to her throat), and he was arrested when he violated a restraining order. Both sides want 5k. MM catches defendant in a lie, so she warns her that will hurt her credibility as the case goes forward. Not to be outdone, plaintiff claims he pawned her jewelry for rent money, but doesn’t say it's his rent after he moved out.  Lots of claims and counterclaims, and I was wishing JJ was there to give the "courts are not there to settle "almost married" disputes" speech. MM essentially said the same thing, calling it a wash and sending them on their way.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

I was wishing that the Little Woman of Hollywood (or whatever she called herself) had gone on Judge Judy instead of The People's Court.

OMG, I was thinking exactly the same thing. She bugged the hell out of me - the theatrics, the exaggerated facial expressions, the "Boom!", the "Maybe... I suppose.. could have been." Making cracks about how the plaintiff's car is an old heap and the bumper was probaby dragging on the ground before? Not cute at all. Judge Judy would have shut that down pronto. The best part is that someone who has her own show (I didn't recognize her because I never watch reality garbage) doesn't pay for car insurance. It lapsed the day before the accident (we've never heard that before), and of course the ins. company never informed her. On top of everything else, she's a typical TPC liar. I don't even have my own show, but somehow I manage to have continuous coverage.

Not-So-Famous Montana is an authority not only on rap videos, but on construction costs as well. Except he didn't know what the hell he was talking about and was merely trying to beat the plaintiff out of his fee. Didn't work out so well.

I was surprised that Mohammed came out with "nonchalant" when he said things like "visson" for eviction and mangled other words. Lovely couple, pawning each other's items. The knife to the throat was a nice touch. SHE can't pay her rent, but they have thousands in electronics, running shoes and jewelry in the house.

Edited May 9, 2016 by AngelaHunter
Because I can't spell after 2nd glass of wine.

[SRTouch]

3 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

 

I was surprised that Mohammed came out with "nonchalant" when he said things like "visson" for eviction and mangled other words. Lovely couple, pawning each other's items. The knife to the throat was a nice touch. SHE can't pay her rent, but they have thousands in electronics, running shoes and jewerly in the house.

I didn't even catch the thousands spent on luxuries and no money for rent, but you're right. All the electronics, jewelry, and pricey sneakers, but no rent money.

[seacliffsal]

TLC must have paid People's Court for a promotion as MM made a deal out of a celebrity who really isn't one.  And the non-celebrity lapped up MM's comments.  I really don't understand why MM made a deal out of it.  Then she asked the plaintiff if she had recognized the defendant as a celebrity and the plaintiff looked shocked that she would be asked that or even know who the defendant was.  And, I agree with the poster above who wrote that the defendant treated this like an audition.  So glad the plaintiff won.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

 I really don't understand why MM made a deal out of it.

JM did make a deal of it (not sure why - any dickhead can have his/her own show, be a "celebrity" these days if their behavior is outrageous or ridiculous  enough) but I think if any big deal were made of it, Levin the Smarmy Shyster had to be behind it.

[OhioSongbird]

Yep.....that's the first thing I thought when I heard TMZ.

Sleazeball.....

[SRTouch]

44 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

JM did make a deal of it (not sure why - any dickhead can have his/her own show, be a "celebrity" these days if their behavior is outrageous or ridiculous  enough) but I think if any big deal were made of it, Levin the Smarmy Shyster had to be behind it.

She HAS to be a celebrity, after all her fender bender made TMZ.

[jumper sage]

On 5/4/2016 at 5:13 PM, AngelaHunter said:

This format sucks. Never start a post and then discard it. You can't get rid of it. At least I can't.

I find it easier to just click away.