The People's Court - General Discussion

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I enjoyed today's case with the auction house. The ghastly, beastly, mouthy plaintiff kept rolling her eyes at JM until dared to do it again. She also could not STFU and was ordered to "sit" like a dog. JM had the gall to expect her to have read a contract. Who does that? I forced myself to listen to creepy old Levin and was pleased to find out def. was able to produce the right evidence and plaintiff lost her case.

And like a puppy just beginning to be trained, when MM let her up, it wasn't long before she started up again. I mean, when the judge reads part of the  contract out loud in court how can you stillc insist the contract doesn't say what was just read. I feel sorry for everyone who disagrees with this plaintiff, not only will they never be able to convince her of anything, she'll drag them to court.

[SRTouch]

FIRST CASE: Foolish plaintiff lets neighbor buy her son Xbox and iPod for Christmas using plaintiff's credit, and stopped making the monthly payments. MM gives a lesson on how foolish it is to buy something on credit card and then make minimum payments. Once late fees and interest have been added in, defendant hasn't paid down the balance at all. Her excuse seems to be that plaintiff is "older and wiser" and should have made the payments so there wouldn't be late fees. Huh? Oh, yeah, it's all the plaintiff's fault. 15 minutes into the case we find out the defendant was arrested and lost custody of her kids because she slapped the son who the electronics were purchased for. Don'cha just love it when a litigant tries to tell a judge something doesn't have anything to do with a case? Hey, dummy, who do you think decides what is or isn't relevant to a case, you or the judge?  Plaintiff wins. 

SECOND CASE:  plaintiff put down a deposit and broker's fee on an apartment, changed her mind, and wants the money back. Really doesn't have a case. She signed paperwork which says, in part, that the broker fee and deposit are non refundable. Her problem is that her she was taking the apartment without consulting with her sister, who was going to be her roommate - and sister wasn't as keen on moving in together. She tries a couple was to make the defendant a bad guy, but MM decides she just wanted out of the lease - case dimissed.

THIRD CASE: Customer suing the cleaners for a suit he says they lost. Defendants insist their check in/out system is foolproof, and it is virtually impossible for them to make a mistake. Don't know why people make these blanket statements - my automatic response is to come up with ways they COULD make sure mistake. MM treats their claim pretty much like I would, and starts coming up with ways a mistake could happen. Much, much better to say that with their system several mistakes have to be made at the same time for the customer's suit to have gone out the door with a different customer. In the end the defendants admit mistakes can happen, but they still think the guy picked up the suit. Plaintiff wins, but is awarded much less than what he is asking, $100 out of the $1350. Once again, litigant wanting replacement value instead of depreciated value - oh and he wanted to be paid for wasted time or some such. Hallterview has defendants admitting they make mistakes, but they don't feel they did this time. Plaintiff tells us he's happy just winning, says more than anything he was upset with the attitude of the folks at the cleaners - insisting he picked up the suit when he knows he didn't instead of just admitting they lost it and offering an apology.

[ElleMo]

On 6/20/2016 at 1:00 PM, cattykit said:

She claimed to be a nurse so she should be listed on the state nursing registry, or be cited for practicing nursing without a license.  I thought they were in NY, and there is no LPN or RN listed under that name.  She's also not listed on the NY nursing assistant registry under that name, in case she was a CNA pretending to be a nurse.  Did I get the state wrong?

I am pretty sure that the people on this show use the term "nurse" very loosely.  She is probably more likely a home health aid.  Not sure if they need to be licensed or registered. 

[AlleC17]

On the auction house case:  I giggled when stupid Levin stated that the defendant supplied the evidence she needed to win the case in the allotted time period.  I did not want that obnoxious plaintiff to win a dime.  Read the contract!  Then she states that she had 'no problem with the contract'.  Yes, you did you idiot:  you mentioned that during your testimony. 

[cattykit]

So you have knee replacements and that gets you disability?  Because you can't sit at a desk?  Another fucking case where the taxpayers are footing the bill for Section 8 and the deadbeat expects to get money back.  And then she gets free refrigerators from you and me and then expects the defendant to replace the one he gave her.  And then she wants $1000 in interest on a $1300 deposit.  I want in on that, too.  And then she's such an ingrate that he doesn't even charge her for her portion of the rent at the holidays, and she sues him anyway.  Fuck people.

[SRTouch]

First case: strange case of man suing his sister in law. Seems a couple years ago dude had a fight with the wife, moved out, found and furnished an apartment. After a couple weeks they reconcile, but he's now on the hook for another apartment. The wife's sister lives with them, and he offers her the now furnished apartment.  And, there's the rub... When he was furnishing the place, he bought an $800 bed. She says that's to expensive, and refuses to pay for it. According to her, she went out and bought a cheaper bed, and for almost three years now she's had his bed diassembled leaning against the wall in the 1 bedroom apartment. He says he's been trying to get the money all this time, even sending her a certified letter, but she won't answer the door or even answer when he or his wife call. MM awards him the price of the bed because she can't believe that bed has been leaning against the wall all this time, and defendant has nothing to show that she ever told guy to come get the bed like she claims. Case is pretty boring, except for maybe 90 seconds when MM is trying to figure out who wrote out two handwritten inventories of stuff he bought for the apartment that he left for her. Nobody admits to writing the lists - even after MM tells the dude he'll win if he wrote it he denies writing the list. 

SECOND CASE: plaintiff suing an ex coworker over 2 tickets to some church dinner event. Seems she bought the $120 tickets with the understanding she could cancel and get a refund, but when she canceled she couldn't get her money back. So, she's suing for the ticket price plus $30 for inconvenience. Defendant says she didn't get the money back because by the time plaintiff canceled, 2 hours before the dinner, defendant was already charged for the dinner. Wow, what a voice on the plaintiff with the green hair highlights and sparkly eye shadow - made me want to just FF through her testimony. Turns out the plaintiff and her dad just wanted to come meet MM, not bringing any evidence. Girl admits there was no promises of a refund when she bought the tickets. Later on, after she canceled the defendant told her in text message that she would check about refunds, but she never promised to refund the price. Dad wants some air time, so he gets up to clarify things. Really just contradicts her testimony and his timeline doesn't jibe with the texts. Case dismissed.

THIRD CASE: tenant wants back deposit, after an 11 year tenancy. Not only does she want back the $1300 deposit, but she wants $1000 in interest. Defendant landlord says she took his fridge, left the place a mess with urine on the floors, caused damage yada yada and the biggy according to the intro left behind two dead cats - OK as someone who once did apartment maintenance and experienced finding pets left behind to starve, if that turns out to be true... well, words fail me.

Of course we're talking section 8. MM asks what her portion of the rent for the 4 bedroom house was, but we never got an answer. She says she took the fridge because she turned in the landlord's fridge and got a new one as part of some government program - yep she knows all about getting the goverment aid after years of assistance. She says she never received the certified letter explaining why she wasn't getting back the full deposit (and check for what was being returned). Landlord has the returned letter with 3 attempts by post office to deliver the letter. We haven't heard one word about the damage claim, and everything I'm hearing is making the plaintiff looking worse.

Usually I'm reluctant to let the landlord keep deposits after long time tenacy, but this guy has the pictures and receipts. Not only that, but the guy discounted her rent every year as a Christmas gift - wow, why couldn't I have rented from this guy back when I was a tenant. We also find out that plaintiff is basing her interest demand on something she found online - and MM tells her her information is just plain wrong. In fact MM offers to give both sides copies of the pertinent law, because nobody has it right. 

Plaintiff wins, but we don't know how much as MM says she'll have to research what the interest rates were going back 11 years. Thankfully, not another mention of dead animals. Hallterview has defendant agreeing with MM, while plaintiff saying she deserved more.

[SRTouch]

11 minutes ago, cattykit said:

So you have knee replacements and that gets you disability?  Because you can't sit at a desk?  Another fucking case where the taxpayers are footing the bill for Section 8 and the deadbeat expects to get money back.  And then she gets free refrigerators from you and me and then expects the defendant to replace the one he gave her. 

Yeh, the taxpayers didn't just buy 1 fridge, as I heard it she gets a new one every 3-4 years. Good grief, here I am getting by on 7 yo appliances.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Of course we're talking section 8.

I see I did everything wrong in my life. I should have had FIVE kids I couldn't afford to house. The taxpayers would have paid for my four bedroom house AND they would have bought me a new fridge every few years. I worked all my life and my fridge is now 14 years old. Unacceptable! Someone needs to buy me a new one. Oh, and when I was renting, not once did my landlord give me a free month. If he had, I wouldn't be suing him for money that came from someone else to begin with. A radiator with the legs driven right through the floor? Just normal wear and tear, right? What bugs me most is that these people who have received forced donations of many thousands of dollars from the working public have the unmitigated gall to make demands for yet more charity. It's always the same story.

Quote

Wow, what a voice on the plaintiff with the green hair highlights and sparkly eye shadow

JM thought she was "adorable." One of the few times I've disagreed with her. Plaintiff seemed to think that acting like an airhead was going to win her case. And dad didn't know it was his girlfriend's (not the plaintiff's "stepmother) birthday that very day? Girl would have brought evidence, if there was any. The green wig just wasn't doing it. Glad the def. won.

Quote

 strange case of man suing his sister in law.

I nearly had to turn this off. All parties were extremely annoying. SIL sounded just like the YT vid where two Cleverbots are hooked up to each other and "conversate." She never used any of the furniture left in her place, not even in two and a half years! Well, okay - maybe she did use the mattress and box spring, but not the steel frame!

[Jamoche]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Wow, what a voice on the plaintiff with the green hair highlights and sparkly eye shadow -

Not just green - it's really close to the world's ugliest color.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Not just green - it's really close to the world's ugliest color.

Maybe she got a discount after Halloween.

[DoctorK]

I was disgusted. Another entitled section 8 person, a free new refrigerator/freezer every couple of years person (mine is 21 years old and working fine except for an occasional wheezing noise) who wants a landlord (who gave her free rent on Decembers as a Christmas gift) to give her more money. Screw you! Give section 8 to people who understand this a helping hand to let people move up the ladder, not a "give me more money" entitlement.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Give section 8 to people who understand this a helping hand to let people move up the ladder, not a "give me more money" entitlement.

What always gets me is the snotty, in-your-face attitude. Not a hint of gratitude, just anger and resentment that they aren't getting yet more of a free ride on someone else's dime. It's outrageous.

[SRTouch]

Ah this episode is either going to be great, or boring, as the show starts out with MM looking at a litigant and saying, "So, you don't like to pay rent?"

FIRST CASE: plaintiff, landlord, is suing his former tenant for $700, the cost of evicting her (yep, she's the one being questioned in the preview clip). She's countering for $657.65, the fees she incurred. (And, you guessed it, section 8 was assisting to pay the rent for her and her 3 kids in a house.) Landlord says she quit paying rent after 2 months. Defendant says she paid every month, and has the receipts. While she looks for the receipts, MM questions the plaintiff. He's already provided evidence of the eviction negotiations between his lawyer and section 8. The short story is he forgave the rent to get her out. MM asks why the lawyer fees were not discussed in the negotiations, he says it was mentioned but not followed up on because of a death in the lawyer's family. She asks for proof he paid $700. He says sure, right here, and passes up a receipt for the $160 retainer, saying the lawyer told him that was good enough. MM explains all the receipt proves is he paid the retainer, and tells him he needs a new lawyer. Surprise surprise, after commercial break we come back to defendant trying to explain why she doesn't have the receipts she was looking for. She has a new defense, though. Now she says she didn't pay the rent because she was buying the heating oil, which the landlord agrees he was supposed to pay according to the lease. Now the landlord is scrambling. First it is here's receipts and bank statements that he claims show he paid for the oil, then he says they had a verbal agreement that she was going to pay for the oil, wishy washy nonsense - I don't believe anyone. Turns out the agreement he's trying to sell us now (and of course she's denying) is that she agreed to pay for the oil because he was giving her a 6 bedroom house instead of the 4 bedrooms she qualified for under section 8. When asked if section 8 knew about this, no answer, he just looks at the defendant - oops, he may have just put them both on the section 8 sh*t list. This case was getting boring, but watching the dude try to explain how they were cheating on the section 8 rules was good - of course she denies everything, but he has me believing his story. 

MM believes his story, and is pissed at everybody. She says neither side deserves anything because they're scamming section 8, but she still goes through adding up the totals of rent vs oil cost for the counterclaim. Her decision is that if everything the defendant claims is true, she would still owe rent - except that rent was forgiven in the negotiated settlrment. So counterclaim is thrown out. Oh, and the original suit was out way back when he had no proof of how much he paid the lawyer.

Really, case turned out to be boring, JJ would have dumped the case right off "courts are NOT in the business of helping scammers!" Only highlights were the bit in the preview with MM asking defendant about not liking to pay rent, the look on the plaintiff's face when he realizes he just admitted to conspiring to scam section 8, and best of all, hefty lady with violet hair in the street interview and the girl in blue next to her winking at the camera. Don't even know what violet hair with matching lips and pink handbag said ;-)

SECOND CASE:  stupid barter case, where paralegal plaintiff was going to do autoshop owner defendant's bankruptcy case in exchange for work on old junk '97 BMW. He ends up leaving his car at the defendant's shop for over a year, and now wants over $6k for what he says was supposed to be a $2650 repair job. Plaintiff is a real slimeball who has worker who passes out flyers at courthouse advertising legal services. Defendant says he thought plaintiff was a lawyer when they made the deal. He says the bankruptcy was never completed, and of course plaintiff has nothing to prove he did any legal work for the defendant. Slimeball plaintiff just keeps sliding down the slippery slope, the over inflated damage claim, the flyers at the courthouse, no evidence of the legal work he claims to have completed, and now his testimony about how long he left the car in the shop varies. Defendant admits he owes the deposit, since he never fixed the car, but says he just couldn't come up with the $800. Ok, now we get to the ridiculous damage claim. Foregone conclusion plaintiff will get back the deposit, but he wants a new $4600 paint job (on the 17yo car), insurance payments for the time it was in the shop, yada yada. MM scoffs at the bloated claim and gives him the $800 deposit.

Girl in blue still hamming it up for the camera and winking at the cameraman. Is girl on other side of hefty violet hair wearing wristband color coordinated with hefty.

THIRD CASE: plaintiffs are father, aunt and uncle who are suing daughter/niece for charges for bailing. Her story is that she stabbed her bf when he was choking her in front of her children, spent 27 days in jail, and eventually pled guilty and received probation. Plaintiffs say they needed $3500 to get the bondsman to bail her out, and had to scrounge it up between them to go with the almost 1k of the defendant's money. The bondsman agreed to bail her out if the family co-signed a loan. Well, they cosigned, but defendant hasn't made the agreed upon payments for over a year and the family started getting collection calls. Now the bondsman is threatening to come at the family so they're suing to protect themselves. 

Girl in blue is now not only winking, she's nodding and mouthing something - need a lip reader to tell us what she's saying.

Finally, MM slams the defendant, and defendant just let's it roll off - no remorse, no apology for hurting the family's credit, not even thanks for putting the credit up to bail her out. Just that they should have let her stay in jail. Defendant says she hasn't worked in a year because she can't find a job. Sort of funny when MM says she might have some sympathy if the defendant was out hustling for work, and defendant takes 'hustling for work' to mean prostitution or some other illegal activity. MM tells the family it's too early to sue. While the collections people are threatening to freeze their accounts, they haven't done so yet, so they're not really out anything yet. So, plaintiffs get back the $120 they can prove they've paid, and the case is left open so they can come sue again if the collections actually takes action against them. Hallterview gets interesting when uncle puts his hands on his hips and imitates his wife when she told him not to help keep niece out of jail by making a payment (which he didn't get credit for because he just put it on the account rather than having it in his name for the defendant).

[cattykit]

It's funny to me how I used to make sure I'd seen the show before coming here to read SRTouch's recaps, and now I wait for the recap so I can follow along as I watch.  Most of the time.

I think I hate Section 8 cases worse than animal cruelty cases.  Is there any benefit, other than increased availability to their property, for a landlord to accept Section 8? 

"Oh, I forgot to bring the bankruptcy legal work that is the foundation of this case."  Should we start a Stupid/Devious Litigants drinking game? 

Third case defendant should audition for Shameless.  Just screw over your family because they're your family.  Then again, so should about half the litigants we see here.

Edited June 23, 2016 by cattykit

[SRTouch]

35 minutes ago, cattykit said:

I think I hate Section 8 cases worse than animal cruelty cases.  Is there any benefit, other than increased availability to their property, for a landlord to accept Section 8?

Wonder how much it's worth to have a good percentage of the rent direct deposited every month? The down side, at least judging from court tv, is that you can end up with some bad tenants who feel entitled and know how to game the system. OTOH, back when I did apartment maintenance, we had some great tenants who were section 8. We never see those people, we see the scammers and abusers who are gaming the system and giving the good people a bad rep.

Edited June 23, 2016 by SRTouch
Correction

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

"So, you don't like to pay rent?"

Does anyone we see here ever pay her own rent? And it's always a "she" who has a bunch of kids and someone has to pay for them. The government is certainly generous with other peoples' money. Here's a novel thought: Use birth control, stop dropping babies like a cow from a bunch of absent/MIA/incarcerated baby daddies. Get  a J-O-B and only have as many kids as you can afford. I guess Sec8, like welfare, is a career choice for many people. Landlord was an idiot, on top of everything else. He's suing for lawyer's fee, but just, well,  forgot to bring any proof of what he paid. He got ripped off by his lawyer too, who couldn't help him for months because her father died. Okay, then.

Quote

I think I hate Section 8 cases worse than animal cruelty cases.

I don't hate them more, although they make my head hurt. They probably fall between animal abuse and desperate women who pay losers for the pleasure of their company. I'm waiting for a Sec8 case where the recipient says, "I was in desperate need at the time. I'm so grateful that strangers paid for my 4-bedroom house and I want to give back to society all I've received during this short period when I needed help". Guess I better not hold my breath.

Paralegal who seems to have no knowledge of the law in any way wants payback for deposit for his 19 year old POS BMW he left at def's shop for 15 months, plus 4600$ more because said POS has scratches on it. Heee!

Quote

Defendant says she hasn't worked in a year because she can't find a job.

"Bails bondman, bails bondmen" - eek! Uncle was wearing a zoot suit and I wondered where on earth he got it. Anyway, I always stab my boyfriend when he's choking me in front of my keeds. Sec8, welfare? I'm sure she's been pounding the pavement looking for a job for the last year. No money to pay even 20$ to the people who bailed her out, but money for other things, I'm sure. Don't tell me she's ever had gainful employment in her life.

Edited June 23, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[momtoall]

Quote

 OTOH, back when I did apartment maintenance, we had some great tenants who were section 8. We never see those people, we see the scammers and abusers who are gaming the system and giving the good people a bad rep.

Exactly!!  I've said this so many times I feel like a broken record.

[DoctorK]

What we see on these shows are not necessarily representative of section 8 people or SSI people, what we see are the ones who come on TV court shows and most of them seem to be extremely cognizant of all the ways to game the system so that we support them.

[wallysmommy]

These are also the same people who use the ER as a clinic, then find a "complaint" or claim no services were provided so that the hospital will write off their bill.  The problem is we don't give them a chance to go to court to air their grievances.  I would like to take some of them to JJ or TPC.  It would be entertaining to see them tell the judge they weren't treated, but we have medical records with the list of pain meds they were prescribed that they signed off on when they were discharged.  It would be a whole new world of cases besides cell phones and abused animals.  They know how to play the system from every angle.   

Re: "winky" in the inane street gang.  She was definitely preening for the camera, and not doing it very well.  The was a motley crew they had yesterday.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

what we see are the ones who come on TV court shows and most of them seem to be extremely cognizant of all the ways to game the system so that we support them.

It was quite impressive the way that woman could quote chapter and verse the rules for Sec8 housing, re: pricing, number of rooms, etc. Makes you think if they were that diligent about other things, they might be able to pay their own damned rent.

[SRTouch]

FIRST CASE: Plaintiff has strong Massachusetts accent - which is the only remarkable thing about the case, besides how decent the litigants in the case act. And the case will take longer to talk about than it took on the tv, because these folks just had a disagreement over who should pay for the installation of a faulty rebuilt car part. What happened is the plaintiff's mechanic was busy, so the mechanic sent plaintiff off to the parts store to get the part. He brings it back, the mechanic puts it in, and the part leaks. Mechanic shows the plaintiff the problem, takes it out and sends the guy back to the parts store for a different rebuilt part. Installs the part a second time and this one works like a charm. Problem comes when deciding who is going to pay for the second installation. Normally, the plaintiff, as the mechanic's customer, wouldn't have to pay, because the mechanic would either eat the charge, or he would deal with the parts store. This time, though, mechanic is charging the customer because the part was bought by the customer. So the plaintiff, who was the customer, turns around and wants the parts store to eat the second installation charge. The parts lady is in court saying "we didn't do anything wrong. We didn't charge for the second part... and besides we sent the 'faulty' part back to the company that rebuilt it and they say it's fine." The folks from the parts store were polite, gave the guy the replacement part at no charge - they just don't feel they should pay for the second installation.  MM disagrees, says they should pay, so the defendant loses. Actually, I think the real guilty party is the company who supplied the parts store. They supposedly tested the part and said it was fine, yet the mechanic and his customer both saw it leak. Other possibility is that the mechanic, who by all accounts knows what he's doing, screwed up the first installation. Neither litigant in the case did anything wrong, but unfortunately they were the ones in court. The defendant can now turn around and sue their supplier.

Somehow, in hallterview plaintiff's strong accent is suddenly much less. Could it be that he was hamming it up in court? Perhaps it comes on strong when nervous.

SECOND CASE: stereo plaintiffs, both plaintiffs try to answer when asked questions - at least they both give the same answer. Plaintiffs were being evicted, so he rented a room from the defendant in a hurry. Problem is the apartment was without electricity when he saw it, and the defendant says she told him she was going to use his payment to get the power turned on. The guy pays up, but then thinks about it and decides to back out of the deal because it's just too sketchy for the defendant to not be able to afford to keep the power on. MM explains that the dude became a month to month tenant as soon as he paid the money. He knew about the electricity being out beforehand,  so he can't use that as a reason to get back the money. So defendant is entitled to the $800 for a month's rent, but has to return the other $200. Now the defendant tries to justify keeping the extra $200 by saying dude and his 'gang' left threats on her phone when she didn’t return the money (with of course she didn't have because she used it to get the lights turned back on). Then she plays messages where he says he and his gang, the bloods (lowercase 'b' because these are posers) are going to beat her, and are coming to get his money with a gun. Not a smart move on dude's part, MM tells him he could be arrested and charged for those 21 messages, even if it was his friends making threats not him). Oh, and MM is so over with cutey gf interrupting to add her two cents. Once she hears the first message and girly starts to say something,  MM immediately tells her to keep quiet or she'll have to leave. Don't understand why she's hasn't been sitting all along instead of being allowed to stand up and chime in when the mood suited her, because as MM says she really has no part in the case. Oh how quickly things can change. One minute it looks like an easy win for plaintiff, the next he's being threatened with jail - but like MM tells him, at least he won't need to worry about finding a place to stay. Oh well, while the threats are bad and all, MM doesn't believe for a second dude is really a Blood, and just warns the guy that she's  going to get a copy of the threats and he'll be a suspect if anything does happen to the defendant. He does get his $200 back.... sounds like maybe the defendant should have filed a harrassment counterclaim - at the very least get restraining order. Dude's probably all talk, but sounds like there was real harrassment going on rather than what some litigants call harrassment.

THIRD CASE: Dude buys a junker for $1300, and now wants MM to undo the deal give him more than twice his money back. Hmmmm wonder how this one ends? The best part of the deal is the dude works at a Nissan dealership - along with his mechanic friend/witness who says he would have checked out the car for free. So plaintiff buys this '92 junker without a mechanic check, and without test driving it - guess that's better than buying sight unseen online, course what he saw was a pile of junk, sideview mirror hanging off, with dowsing that don'the work, etc. Plaintiff normally out of luck (and stupid for buying it) but turns out defendant never registered it, so he couldn't legally sell it until he got it registered in his name. Surprise ending, plaintiff wins and get his $1300 plus a little for oil change and new steering belt - but  nothing for pain and suffering, missed work etc. In hallterview we learn defendant drove this pile of crap as a delivery driver, no brakes, compromised steering, dashboard display not working, windows that don't work etc etc. Now that they have the car back, dad plans to give it to the daughter - but says he won't drive it. Huh? Yeh, daughter can drive it. Oh well, he did say he was going to fix it first.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

So plaintiff buys this '92 junker without a mechanic check, and without test driving it

Yes, but I'm sure he trusted the seller when he said the 24-year old shitbox he couldn't wait to dump was in mint condition, right? Only a very untrusting person would think otherwise.

Looks like some good ones today. Thanks for the preview SRTouch!

[SRTouch]

Direct Tv tells me we're back to reruns ?

FIRST CASE: idiot plaintiff gets phone, with service, for friend who says he has cash, but no credit. Not only is she foolish for putting her credit on the line for someone who doesn't take care of his own credit, her case has holes right off the bat. "Your honor, I knew his credit was bad, which is why we have this written contract." MM glances at the "contract" and tosses it aside, saying it means nothing without signatures. Guess what, he pays late, misses payments, etc all the things which ruined his credit so that he couldn't get the phone in his name (all according to her, his story is different). She cuts off service - he pays enough to get it turned back on - he misses next payment and she cuts service and refuses to turn it back on. Now we go to defendant - oh and he wants the moon because of missed work and pain and suffering , yep this phones business is causing him pain and suffering. He says at no time was his credit a reason he needed her to get a phone. Yada yada fast talking nonsense yada yada. She wanted to to pay her bill as well as what I owed more nonsense. Quick question to plaintiff for a copy of the bills. Oh, she didn't bring the bills, but trust her she's telling the truth. At this point I want to throw up my hands and forget it, but of course we can't do that because she might actually be owed something - countersuit is out, no one gets paid for missing work or pain and suffering in a phone case. MM takes a recess for little miss organized to get copies of the bills. (Or maybe it's just time for commercial break.) When we come back we get treated to an example of why JJ won't hear these cases. Even though she has the bill in her hand, MM can't tell what portion relates to him and what is hers - back to he said / she said. After wading through all the convoluted phone bills, texts, he/she said nonsense, MM figures out plaintiff cut the phone before bill was due, and she's asking for him to pay for stuff he shouldn't have to pay for. Finally comes out that dude was messing with her friend while married, and friend didn't know about wifey.  When he breaks it off with the friend, she no longer wants him on her plan. MM says he needs to pay for the phone - which he conveniently didn't bring to court, but she can pay her own bills. And of course he gets nothing.

As I'm watching this guy with his arm waving I keep trying to think who he reminds me of. Remember Anthony (Meshach Taylor) on Designing Women.

SECOND CASE: car case - oops, Dr appointment and not enough time to watch both, so I chose to watch THIRD CASE, which is about stray mama cat. Neighbor who is allergic to cats, agrees help defray the cost of feeding mama cat and kitten for a year. Plaintiff agreed to take the cat, but she thinks the agreement was 50% of vet bills and food. Oh, and she figures the cats need premium food, not that cheap stuff. MM decides plaintiff hasn't proven that defendant agreed to do more than contribute to the cost, nothing about the vet or 50% of the cost. 

I have to admit I probably spend $1500 on food (no cheap stuff on the menu here) and vet bills for my 5 in a year. She kept a couple of the kittens, so if you add in 3 spay/neuter, kitten shots, etc, she might well have spent what she claims. I just don't think defendant agreed to half, and MM agrees.

Edited June 27, 2016 by SRTouch
Spelling

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

idiot plaintiff gets phone

Were litigants today auditioning for stand up comedy? Those two - "God sister and brother until the bills come in" got on my last nerve. Def, a grown man with a wife and a job, can't write a check and his credit is so bad he can't even buy himself a phone or get a plan. But he MUST HAVE a 700$ phone for $125/month  and plaintiff is idiotic enough to agree with that. (I just got a smart phone - first ever - and have "exhuberant amounts of credit". My phone cost 120$ and my plan, 13.50$/mth, but I'm not a big wheeler-dealer like no-credit def.) The  "How ya doin', your Honor?"  and the unsigned contract (which plaintiff probably wrote up the day before this appearance) really did make this seem like a comedy sketch. Except it wasn't funny.

Then we had guy suing for damages to his '88 car. He was so incapable of speaking English in a coherent manner ("He ain't got no money.") his witness had to try and relate what happened. Boring.

Quote

which is about stray mama cat.

I do remember that one vaguely, and know it made me sick the first time I saw it, so skipped the repeat.

[SoapDoc]

Re the third case: It wasn't just because the agreement was ambiguous (whether the agreement was half or not), the plaintiff didn't have any vet bills until after the year was up. Even if she had agreed to half for the year, the spay/neutering happened a few months after the deal was up. When the judge asked why she was including costs after the time frame that both litigants had agreed to, the plaintiff said something to the effect of she didn't think the defendant really meant one year -- or something just as ridiculous. It also came out that the litigant never said anything about the amounts of money that the defendant was handing over at the time -- she never mentioned that she wanted more.

So basically, the defendant would help with food but she wasn't obligated to upgrade to organic or grin-free because the plaintiff wanted to since that wasn't in the original agreement.

[Jamoche]

If the phone company doesn't trust Anthony's shifty brother to pay his bills, why the hell would you?

[Rick Kitchen]

5 hours ago, Jamoche said:

If the phone company doesn't trust Anthony's shifty brother to pay his bills, why the hell would you?

Because he was just like my godbrother.

[BubblingKettle]

What was up with that couple in the first case? The woman didn't know she would have to choose a wedding invitation, and she claimed she didn't know how to? And her reason, "I don't know....it's my first marriage." What in the hell? Sorry, but even if a woman didn't have a mother, sister, or friend who talks about wedding things or helps with the details, I think a normal woman would know that a set of invitations is necessary. Her behavior was odd through the whole case -- afraid of her boyfriend, cognitive issues, afraid of being found out for something?  Who knows. 

And the groom-to-be was dictating the length of the train? That doesn't sit well with me.

I can't even deal with the allegations of the defendant (regarding the bedroom problem). The defendant started her fast downward spiral after those factoids were shared.

On a sidenote, the defendant's outfit was spiffy -- nicely coordinated, classy cufflinks, etc. But I don't know how she can breathe easily with those heavy boobs weighing on her all day. And the back pain!

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

What was up with that couple in the first case?

It seems the timid bride was so desperate to have a ring on her finger she was willing to marry the controlling, angry, premature ejaculator. Well, that's what he is according to the wedding planner, the overly dramatic Bud Costello look-alike and her toothless... witness? Moral support? Girlfriend? Whatever. 

Quote

I think a normal woman would know that a set of invitations is necessary.

Umm, yeah. When I got married, it was the first time, but somehow I knew invitations were necessary and that I had to pick them. Amazingly, the wedding took place without a 5K wedding planner. Beginner's luck, I guess.

Quote

And the groom-to-be was dictating the length of the train?

Was it a 14-foot train? For a woman with a grown child, from what I gathered. Tacky, but maybe that's how it's done these days. I wouldn't know.

[Jamoche]

1 hour ago, CoolWhipLite said:

 Sorry, but even if a woman didn't have a mother, sister, or friend who talks about wedding things or helps with the details, I think a normal woman would know that a set of invitations is necessary.

How did she possibly avoid knowing about the whole bridal industry? It's on TV all the time, there are magazines at supermarket checkouts, there's the internet, there's wedding planners waiting to swoop in on anyone who so much as Googles "wedding planner"...

[razibpaul126]

I too enjoy your post

[DebbieW]

I think that bride has managed to reset our already low bar for stupid.

[SRTouch]

first case: Today's rerun starts off with the little bald dude with mustache who bought a couple used jetskis from the big bald tow guy with the goatee. Course he didn't bother with a mechanic check or putting them in water to see if they work, instead he just took the FB add at face value and bought them from a total stranger. Turns out the tow guy had a customer who just gave him the jetskis, and he testifies he rebuilt the carbs and got them water ready. Uh oh, did big dude just torpedo his "as is" defense with claims that he serviced them and rebuilt the carburetors? Should have just kept your mouth shut dude. It was his word against yours, but now you're on record as working on them, and he has a chance to catch you out with expert testimony from another mechanic. Oh, and look, now he's presenting that evidence from another shop disputing your claims. Now things get a little interesting. Little bald dude wants to testify about how big dude flew off the handle and yelled all kinds of slurs when he was called to task for the second mechanics report instead of answering MM's question about the timing of when he had second mechanic look at them. Remember the case where dude is videoed yelling "sue me! Take me to People's Court" - well this is that case. Little guy shows up at big dude's business acting like some TV investigative reporter ambushing the bad guy. MM slams little guy for going to big dude's business and deliberately antagonizing the guy to get a reaction as his son tapes the confrontation. And what's little dude's reaction as he's getting reamed by MM? Smirks and even a laugh as she tells him he's crazy, especially taking his son along. Yep, big dude shot himself in the foot when he said the carbs were rebuilt, and little one has the other mechanic's statement and pictures of rusty bolts on the carb cover which have obviously not been removed. No way to prove it, but after hallterview I wonder if little dude didn't set the big dude up. Sort of wish MM had called that second mechanic, because now I wonder if those pictures were fakes.

remember the period of time when Harv was doing his interviews of people on the TMZ bus in LA. Well, this rerun is from that period, so we get to see girl with shaved side of head play musical chairs for a few days.

SECOND CASE:  Dude suing contractor for incomplete job installing above ground pool for which he's been paid. This is one of those contractors with a flakey contract who tries to educate MM about contract law and how the trades work. Yeah, that goes over like a lead ballon. Yep, this joker just keeps coming up with excuses after excuse of why he doesn't have to follow the contract or live up to what is advertised on his website. Don'the really get an oily con man type vibe, just sort of slip shod disorganized guy who could have made an honest mistake. Oh, and this is the guy who, when asked why he didn't bring his evidence to court says, "You don't need it (the evidence) when you have a good judge." Great comeback, but he would have lost it right thrre had it not been for the fact that plaintiff seems to have inadvertently provided the proof that contractor is right about the total price. In another switcheroo, plaintiff wants MM to double check the dates on the emails and contracts, lo and behold, plaintiff is right and gavel comes down for the plaintiff and he gets everything on the contract.

hmmm that black dude with mustache and goatee sitting on the bus a couple rows in front of shaved head girl sure looks familiar. I don't watch TMZ on TV, but could that guy be from there?

THIRD CASE:  long time friend helps friend out with a car note, and friend stiffs her after repeated promises to pay. Defendant pretty much agrees to everything. No defense, just didn't have the money and got upset that her friend actually came looking for the loan to be repaid. Short case, defendant ordered to pay.

[AZChristian]

51 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

hmmm that black dude with mustache and goatee sitting on the bus a couple rows in front of shaved head girl sure looks familiar. I don't watch TMZ on TV, but could that guy be from there?

 

TMZ on-air folks (not the famous ones) do the tour guide duties on the TMZ bus.  Don't ask me how I know.  (I'd be embarrassed to admit that I've actually done the tour.)

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Today's rerun starts off with the little bald dude with mustache who bought a couple used jetskis from the big bald tow guy

I think I enjoyed this more the second time around. I really liked JM telling Mr. Peepers that he's crazier than meat-headed Bluto with the billy goat facial hair who sold the POS jet skis. I mean, who wouldn't totally trust whatever Bluto said?

Quote

 (I'd be embarrassed to admit that I've actually done the tour.)

If you did, I'd keep that to myself. I wasn't quick enough with the "mute" today and got a "He hardly knew 'er" from that asshole/creep/shyster. Need to drink less wine while I watch, so my finger moves faster.

Edited June 29, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[SRTouch]

Ah, not only reruns, but cases which should never have been filed. Kind of entertaining at times, but not really anything that should have gone to court.

First case: plaintiff waits months to sue plumber who made emergency repairs to fix his gas heat. OK, I get that pretty much everyone would be shocked and speechless when they get hit with this ginormous bill, but waiting 8 months and then taking the plumber to small claims makes no sense. If I understood the hallterview, the thing that really caused the guy to sue was that he couldn't get an itemized receipt, and the plumber did the work without a permit. Did he really want the plumber to wait for a permit? Round here the permitting process could take a week, but this was the holiday season, so it might have been after New Years. I totally believe the plumber when he said the normal practice is to do the emergency repair and then get it inspected before the gas is turned on. That leaves the receipt. Here the plumber was just being an a&&hole. He should have written out an itemized receipt/work order when he finished the job and got paid. I have a feeling the homeowner was so happy to have heat he wrote the check without complaining. After awhile it was like a splinter and kept bugging him until finally he called the plumber screaming about the cost and wanting a itemized statement. Then the plumber, instead of just writing out the work order like he should have, got his back up and ignored him.

Anyway, like I said this was the wrong place to file the plaintiff's complaint. The guy should have taken his complaint to the state plumbers licensing board. The small claims court judge really doesn't know the permit requirements or what the normal charges for an emergency call. Like I said, bill seems ridiculously high to me, but I really have no idea what the normal price for a plumber and helper to make an emergency call and what it cost to bring out the inspector after normal hours. So, make the complaint to the license board, where they DO know if the plumber's charges were out of line. Hey, even if they decide the job was priced fairly, I'd complain about the plumber not providing the requested itemized work order upon completion.

SECOND CASE:  Also should have never been filed. Plaintiff loaned money to friends in a bind. She's already taken them to court and won a judgement for the maximum amount in her jurisdiction, but not she's filed a second claim to get the rest of the money - and her family bible which she says they also borrowed. Nope, can only file a small claims case for a loan once. The bible - well she says they borrowed it and defendant says it was a gift. No proof either way, but MM gets the defendant to agree to give it back if he can find it packed away in boxes after his move. Defendant has counterclaim saying he did handyman/snow removal work for her. Again, no proof.

Only remarkable thing about case is defendant acts insulted by the judge's statement that he and his wife took advantage of the plaintiff's friendship. The plaintiff took out a home equity loan (STUPID!) to loan these losers $5300. She had to take them to court and won a 5k judgement - which they still haven't started paying on. So, even if they pay the 5k as ordered, she'll be out $300 plus whatever interest she's paying. And the dude argues they've done nothing wrong, they just don't have the money to pay the lady. This is one of those instances where coming on TV would have been better than going to court. Plaintiff won the judgement, but is still waiting for the money.

THIRD CASE: Yet another case that should have been settled. Defendant is an unlicensed teenage driver, and caused damage to plaintiff's BMW. No defense, defendant admits he was wrong. Plaintiff is nice and agrees to settle without involving police and insurance to keep the kid out of more trouble. Defendants (unlicensed teenager and his mom) agree to settle, but then renege because of sob story about not enough money. Plaintiff in court now asking for the balance of the smaller estimate, and now defendant's want to turn back the clock and pay the settlement agreement, because the actual cost is more than what plaintiff was willing to settle for. Nope, MM tells them, the settlement agreement is off the table once the plaintiff had to file to get paid, so plaintiff gets what she's asking.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

 Like I said, bill seems ridiculously high to me, but I really have no idea what the normal price for a plumber and helper to make an emergency call

I had to get an after-hours, emergency plumber. I also called about 7 numbers. Either no answer or they couldn't come - getting a plumber around here to come for something like a broken pipe is a miracle! The guy who did come was ridiculously expensive, but I paid the bill and didn't sue him. That's life.

Quote

Only remarkable thing about case is defendant acts insulted by the judge's statement that he and his wife took advantage of the plaintiff's friendship.

I wonder if he had the brains to be sorry he asked JM that question. A show of hands, please: How many people here would fork over $1600 to a co-worker, and then two weeks later, another $3700, which you took from your homeowner's line of credit? The second sum was to fix the daughter's (who looked like she was going to her job as an "escort" later) legal problems. Plaintiff really expected to be paid back and not stiffed? She can look upon the other $300 as a tax on stupidity. The bible was just nonsense. "We wuz movin' at that pacific time," says Dad, so no bible.

Quote

Defendants (unlicensed teenager and his mom) agree to settle, but then renege because of sob story about not enough money.

What a surprise. To no one. Nice that mom sets an example with her lying and thin excuses not to pay.

[Jamoche]

The driving case was initially very confusing because the driver who got hit put her car in the left of the two lanes, but claimed to be making a right turn. Even when she's asked what the lanes do and says one is a straight only and the other is straight/right turn, she still doesn't get that she's got her car in the straight only lane. At first I thought she was doing a lane change, which you should not do in intersections and would make her partly at fault. MM has to come down and move the toy cars for her.

But the defendant is 20 years old, has been "driving" since he was 18, but got his learner's permit a month ago. Um, what? Maybe he looked in the mirror as he claimed, but that car was not in his "blind spot" - going by the photos it had to be right next to him.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

but that car was not in his "blind spot"

If he's 20 years old and thinks the "blind spot" is right in the driver's side window/windshield, he's not smart enough to get a license. I bet there's no learner's permit either. Most of the litigants who are much older drive with no license.

[AZChristian]

And if he had turned his head to look over his left shoulder (as he should have done before pulling out), the "blind spot" defense would have evaporated. 

[AngelaHunter]

Funny litigants!

"Tommy Bahama" shows JM the pics of the damage to his hutch.

JM: "These are useless. I can't  see anything."

TB: "Exactly."

Colucci was a loud-mouthed, ignorant boor (I can't believe he wore his company shirt. I'm sure he'll get lot of business after this)

Colucci: "I wouldn't lie ta ya" x 10. Proceeds to lie like a rug.

The only interesting thing about the landlord/tenant case was that landlord rented to some waitress he met at some cheap restaurant: She squatted, paying no rent so she could save up to afford a lawyer to represent her because she was a squatter who paid no rent.

Edited July 1, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[SRTouch]

What a disappointment! OK the channel guide warned that we were going to see a rerun, but we didn't get a rerun from 2015. Instead we saw a rerun from last week - the one with idiot girl adding bad credit "like a brother" dude on her phone plan. ?  Lucky I never watch live, by the time I started to watch TPC, Hot Bench was coming on on another channel. Oh, woe is me, same deal here - reruns from last week. ? Now I have to wait 4 hours for JJ, on yet a third channel, and my court tv fix....  ?

Edited July 4, 2016 by SRTouch
Correction

[SRTouch]

Ah, boring reruns again today. ? I admit I watched just enough to get an idea of which ones they were, then FF'ed  to the next boring case. First case: was the elderly lady who bought herself some jewelry, found out she was allergic, and wanted a refund. Second case: lady with bad back bought some exercise sessions with coupon, then decides to it's not good for her bad back and, again wants judge to undo her purchase. Real yawner, only remarkable thing is how defendant smiles at everything - well, at least he smiled the short time I was watching. 

Third case: I actually watched this one because MM slammed the entitled plaintiff before the commercial break for saying she couldn't work because she was pregnant, but should have skipped it, too. (Plaintiff explains she owns a laser hair removal business, and she can't work at that while pregnant. I've don't know anything of that type if work, so maybe somebody can explain to clueless me why she couldn't work. Also, assuming she actually had a business and clients established in Florida, I wonder how that would transfer to a different state.) 

Entitled girl starts her case brown nosing the judge. She's suing her ex bf, and father of her child, claiming he neglected to service her '09 car and the engine blew. Seems they lived in Florida when she got pregnant, and she decided she wanted to come home to NY to have the baby. They move in with her mommy and daddy, and sponge off them as neither have jobs. Eventually (again this is all her talking) her sister gets him a job. They only have her car, so he uses it to get to work. Her complaint is that when she notices the check engine light on she told him to take care of it, and he didn't, resulting in the blown engine.

By this time I'm sorry I started watching this thing. Her exaggerated accent and the way she answers the simplest question with long winded explanation aimed at putting the ex down is maddening. Turns out that all the time he's been working at the job her sister got him he's been salting away a getaway stash, and he dumps her at her 'rents as soon as he can afford to get his own apartment. I don't blame her for being pissed for being dumped, but can only wonder how he stood listening to her as long as he did. A year and a half after he dumped her and stopped driving the car she wants him to buy a new engine for the old car.

MM gets tired of the princess and rules against her. (I think a staff member was in the back of the court pointing at the clock saying enough time had been wasted and it's lunchtime.)

[ElleMo]

31 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Third case: I actually watched this one because MM slammed the entitled plaintiff before the commercial break for saying she couldn't work because she was pregnant, but should have skipped it, too. (Plaintiff explains she owns a laser hair removal business, and she can't work at that while pregnant. I've don't know anything of that type if work, so maybe somebody can explain to clueless me why she couldn't work. Also, assuming she actually had a business and clients established in Florida, I wonder how that would transfer to a different state.) 

Don't know about the dangers of working around lasers, but "Many health care providers recommend avoiding laser hair removal during pregnancy because of the lack of information about the effect on the fetus." http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancy-health/hair-removal-and-pregnancy/

[SRTouch]

13 minutes ago, ElleMo said:

Don't know about the dangers of working around lasers, but "Many health care providers recommend avoiding laser hair removal during pregnancy because of the lack of information about the effect on the fetus." http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancy-health/hair-removal-and-pregnancy/

Yeah, I googled it and came up with the same site ? Don't know, but it seems to me she may have needed to be recertification to work in NY. Again, I guessing. 

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Plaintiff explains she owns a laser hair removal business, and she can't work at that while pregnant.

Whatever. "Lisa" was one of the most irritating litigants ever. Yeah, I know I say that a lot. Far from being a teenager, the theatrical and overly-rehearsed plaintiff who thinks all her icky, exaggerated facial expressions are cute, first tries a little kiss-ass with JM ("You look beautiful.") Does anyone sympathize with her - a grown woman who decides that being homeless and hooked up with the slacker, broke boyfriend (who is "in music" but makes no money doing that) is a great time to get knocked up and move back with her parents? Maybe her mom never told her how babies are made.

And yeah, Lisa, everyone  believes that your car sat there with no one driving it for one and half years an had no idea the engine was blown. Makes sense to me.

[knitorpurl]

I just saw a commercial  MM shaking Doug Lewellen's hand saying, "Welcome back". I have so many questions...can this be true? Would it mean that we would be rid of both hallway Curt and creepy Harvey? 

 

 

Tried to watch today's rerun but since it  Tivo'd couldn't  Harvey without ff. Besides gold allergy woman wasn't very compelling again so soon.

[AngelaHunter]

18 hours ago, knitorpurl said:

Today's cases were a perfect encapuslation of what's wrong in the world today.

Screaming, crying Kizzie: She chooses to be a sainted single mother, chooses not to pay for renter's insurance, or to pay her rent because she deserves a vacation, right? Place burns down, but the loss of her stuff is someone else's fault and they should pay her! I believed every word the landlord said, including about the sister removing the smoke detectors. Get insurance next time, Kizzie. You're old enough to be a mother, you're old enough to take responsibility for your own stuff.

Then giant Daddy's girl who rubs the curb when parking Daddy's car and gets a blown tire. No way are they paying the 263$. It has to be someone else's fault. Bulldog Daddy will defend his baby girl til the end. This case, with enough pictures and evidence to go to the Grand Jury, actually made JM roll her eyes and made Douglas smirk.

Finally, "I sign contracts but never bother reading them" furniture guy. He doesn't read what he signs so that too must be someone else's fault. Don't think so. Buh bye to all of you.

Edited because I can't type after my second glass of wine.

Edited July 7, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Today's cases were a perfect encapuslation of what's wrong in the world today.

Screaming, crying Kizzie: She chooses to be a sainted single mother, chooses not to pay for renter's insurance, or to pay her rent because she deserves a vacation, right? Place burns down, but the loss of her stuff is someone else's fault and they should pay her! I believed every word the landlord said, including about the sister removing the smoke detectors. Get insurance next time, Kizzie. You're old enough to be a mother, you're old enough to take responsibility for your own stuff.

Wasn't she a piece of work? 

You could almost hear the word "action" as she started to cry - without visible tears.  She rehearsed that soliloquy so many times in the car before the show that it left her very confident that JM was going to praise her for all her suffering.  

Didn't happen.  Got to give her kudos though for trying the same speech twice.  Still no tears.  Did love it when JM said to stop the drama and she did.  Immediately.

I'm thinking she googled glycerin tears as soon as she got home. 

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

 Got to give her kudos though for trying the same speech twice.  Still no tears.

Actually, there were tears squirting out of her eyes. As my mother used to say, "She must have had onions up her sleeve."