The People's Court - General Discussion

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

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

I missed that.  I saw some wiping of the eye region but I thought she was tearless.

I never hear the expression 'onions up her sleeve'.  I love it.

[Rick Kitchen]

So Judge Judy doesn't care what the laws in the state where the people involved in a case before her say, only what she says in her courtroom.  The defendant showed her an affidavit in lieu of title, which he said, as being in the car business, is valid in the state of Washington, but she said that doesn't apply in her court. 

[SRTouch]

7 hours ago, Rick Kitchen said:

So Judge Judy doesn't care what the laws in the state where the people involved in a case before her say, only what she says in her courtroom.  The defendant showed her an affidavit in lieu of title, which he said, as being in the car business, is valid in the state of Washington, but she said that doesn't apply in her court. 

Ah ha, knew I read this somewhere. Think this should be over in the JJ forum - where I just responded. To repeat what I said over there, according to the Washington State DMV 

"Buying or Selling a Car Without a Title

A title is imperative. You can't complete an official sales transaction without one. If you're the current owner and you can't find the title to the vehicle you wish to sell, you must visit a vehicle licensing office and complete an Affidavit in Lieu of Title form (this cannot be downloaded). Be sure to bring ample proof supporting your ownership claim.

Be prepared to wait. Processing takes up to 10 weeks, so you'll want to initiate this process well before you plan to sell the car."

[DoctorK]

Quote

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

All three of those cases had me yelling at the litigants even more than usual.

[AngelaHunter]

Ho-hum reruns today, which include Levin and his cast of dimwits in the short bus. Only part I enjoyed was the speaker case, with hubby saying, "We're professional people." Yeah, that was apparent from the banshee-like screeching of the wife in the store and their attempt to score a 5K boe-nanza over a 350$ loss. If it really was a loss.

[ElleMo]

On 7/8/2016 at 5:05 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Ho-hum reruns today, which include Levin and his cast of dimwits in the short bus. Only part I enjoyed was the speaker case, with hubby saying, "We're professional people." Yeah, that was apparent from the banshee-like screeching of the wife in the store and their attempt to score a 5K boe-nanza over a 350$ loss. If it really was a loss.

Yeah, I got the feeling that this was a scam.  Since they didn't have to sign anything, they figured they could say they never picked it up and get their money back

Edited July 11, 2016 by ElleMo

[SRTouch]

In a rerun from Feb we have our FIRST CASE, which all about two women vandalizing each other's cars fighting over a two timing man. Some real snazzy dressers in this case. Plaintiff's side favor black outfits, with silver necklaces. The witness has a small necklace and a two tone bozo hairdo.  Plaintiff sporting an almost orange corduroy jacket and thick necklace with matching earrings. She needs the jacket because the TV lights show her bra through her too tight top (oh and she could stand to lose more than a few pounds.) She wants $787.28 for damage to her car. On the other side of the aisle the defendant is dressed in a red sweater top with even redder short hair - oh she's got a necklace, too, big dangly thing hanging down to her navel, which sets off her neck tat and half dozen ear piercings. Her witness, the man they're feuding over, has on blue pants, sports coat and tie. Not sure what possessed him to buy that shirt with the brown collar, but he must think it's sharp with the jacket's matching cuffs. She's countersuing for $1551.06 for damage to HER car. We're talking 2004 junkers here, but these aren't kids, they might have bought these 12yo cars new.

OK, I'm talking about their outfits because the case was pretty much a dud. Lots of accusations flying back and forth, all because dude bounced from one bed to the other (and back), got caught, and the women went off on each other. Little chuckle when MM questions the dude about why these women are fighting over him and he says "I'm lovable". Videos from both sides. Defendant's video hurts her as much as the plaintiff since she's obviously egging on the plaintiff. Doesn't show the plaintiff keying the car, but the daughter saw her do it - course 19yo daughter is at home instead of in court to testify. In the plaintiff's video you see defendant hitting the plaintiff's car, and she has receipt where she got the glass replaced. Course no police report.

As MM is asking for estimates for fixing the defendant's car the plaintiff says her witness has something to say. Turns out bozo hair is defendant's sister. Defendant says she doesn't know what her sister could know, since they haven't spoken in years - but oh by the way sis is raising three of defendant's 8 kids. MM says they're all just depressing and deserve each other. Plaintiff gets her money, and defendant gets nothing.

SECOND CASE:  dog case, plaintiff says she paid $300+ in vet bills and $300 for aggravation after defendant's dog attacked her dog. Defendant says plaintiff's little dog barked at her big dogs, and one of her dogs was provoked into attacking. Ok, before the kerfuffle all three dogs were leashed. Plaintiff's little dog yapped, like so many little dogs do, and defendant's dog slipped her leash and attacked. Defendant tries to avoid liability by saying little dog started it. Really cut and dry case. Defendant (actually her sister) lost control of the dog and it attacked plaintiff's dog while it was leashed. Defendant loses and has to pay vet bill, nothing for aggravation.

 Maybe I've just watched Cesar say too many people don't know how to walk their dogs. Here we had tiny dog standing on its back legs pulling and yapping at two big dogs. The two big dogs are on a double leash, in front of the sister pulling her along. When little yappy acts like it wants to attack, big dogs understandably attack to defend their human. Dogs just doing what dogs do, people totally clueless. Worse thing is the people don't realise they don't know how to walk their dogs, so nothing is going to change. In hallterview defendant still arguing that even though her dog got loose, she shouldn't be held responsible.

THIRD CASE:  College student (studying pre-law) suing ex landlord for $705 security deposit. He's trying to claim he lived there for 10 months and the whole time he was there the door to the building couldn't be locked. Landlord says nothing wrong with door until plaintiff's friend kicked in the door, and he kept $300 from the security for the damage and cleanup, also kept $400 in back rent. Defendant has no pictures of the damage or how the place looked before tenancy, so ends up having to return part of the money.

Edited July 11, 2016 by SRTouch
Clarification

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

our FIRST CASE, which all about two women vandalizing each other's cars fighting over a two timing man.

OH, ugh! This case nearly put me off the spareribs I was eating. I have no idea why the audience found this amusing. Disgusting display in every way, with the vandalizing of cars and screaming matches in the middle of the night. Plaintiff doesn't know a word other than gutter language to describe the def. showing her stuff. Def. has spit out EIGHT kids with eight different sperm donors but most of the litter doesn't live with her because she has a job. Both of these slags need to stop acting like savages, fighting over what must be Shumar's primo dick, and learn how to be civilized and maybe even how to speak English. Oh, and discover the wonderful world of birth control (yeah, too late for that.) So gross. JM coudn't take hearing any more of their sordid, nasty tales. I get it. I felt dirty too.

Quote

dog case, plaintiff says she paid $300+ in vet bills and $300 for aggravation after defendant's dog attacked her dog.

They were some pretty crusty, foul-mouthed, rough broads. Must be nice listening to them cursing and fighting in the street and I believe plaintiff's dog walker is a drunk. I bet the cops are sick to death of them. I'm sure all these "ladies" truly enjoy their low-class little world of strife. I wonder where def. learned the expression, "protective mode." She didn't seem to understand that if her dog slips its collar, that's her responsibility.  I feel sorry for the dogs, with these harridans as owners.

Edited July 11, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[SRTouch]

FIRST CASE: Rerun of the 31yo dude who signed up for an online course to study for a Pharmacy Tech license. He took the online introduction module, the first quiz, and decided the course was a sham and quits. (Nah, just lazy.) Now he's in court wanting his money back, and money for harrassment because the girl who signed him up has been calling wanting the rest of what he agreed to paid. Dude has no case, so not only doesn't he get any of what he's asking for, he ends up having to pay the balance of what he owes. No indication he heard anything in the courtroom. In hallterview he still acts like he thinks he was getting a license upon complettion. 

Nothing wrong with online, correspondence, or self paced courses for motivated students. But, if you're the kind of non-starter 31yo who needs daddy to intercede on your behalf with has bill collectors, well, you probably need the kind of structure where the teacher takes roll every day. Oh, and I can believe that the dad who raised this guy is the type who would try to bribe someone else to take the tests for sonny - problem is the girl is just selling the course, no indication she knows diddly about the material.

SECOND CASE: Ex-tenants suing landlord for cleaning out their apartment and trashing their stuff. Landlord says they owed back rent, he started eviction proceedinds, they had been to housing court, and a settlement was reached. Yep, all true, but they disagree about when the tenants had to be out. Tenants say they have until Aug 10 to move. When she arrived on Aug 3 to finish packing there were workers in the place getting it ready for a new tenant. She says they jumped the gun and threw away some her belongings. Landlord claims his attorney told him they were supposed to be gone, yet the settlement agreement clearly states they had until the tenth. I think the problem is that the settlement said he would forgive what they owed if they were gone by the third, but they had until the ten to be gone if they paid the money - that part wasn't clear to me. Sounds like if they were out by by the 3rd, he wouldn't come after them for any money, but the absolute deadline to be gone was the tenth. Landlord has letter from property management company saying tenant said they were out on the 3rd, and everything left in apartment was trash, and that she turned in the keys. Problem is, his case is based on what the managers told him, and they're not in court to testify. Going by the text messages, looks like the managers are lying, she about had a fit when she arrived on the third and found workers in the apartment. Landlord is trying to get money that he agreed to forego in the settlement agreement. Then he's asking for damages with no proof of damages. Pretty much same thing on plaintiff's case. She has no proof the things she claims were trashed ever existed, much less how much it was worth. MM reminds landlord even if he was right that they were supposed to be gone on the third, by law he is supposed to keep abandoned property a reasonable amount of time before throwing it away. Some tough justice, plaintiff's get half what they asked for.

THIRD CASE: Plaintiff gave away a freezer, and when the defendant was taking it to his truck it fell off the dolly and damaged her car. Dude is wrong on several levels. First, run a strap arpund it so the door doesn't open and cause it to fall off the dolly. No strap - throw a towel or something on the door so you don't scratch the front of the freezer, and put the dolly in front so the door can't swing. Defendant offers to split the repair bill, since he says he asked her to move the car, and the plaintiff told her grown teenage son to help. Car wasn't moved, and son to busy playing basketball to help, so he figures plaintiff should share cost. Dude does have a point. The son and his friends should have paused their game and helped just out of common decency - but being entitled brats does not make them legally liable. MM gives the guy a hard time. Here lady is giving him free appliances and he doesn't make any effort to pay for the damage. The story that he was willing to pay half is meaningless since she had to take him to court to get anything. Hey, if your defense is that you should only pay half, pay the half you agree you owe and let them sue for the rest. In a last ditch effort to avoid paying, he claims she never showed an estimate. Oh, and let's not forget that plaintiff called cops when it happened and he told the cops he'd pay for the damages. When she got an estimate and called asking for payment he started dancing around coming up with why he shouldn't pay.

Legally, this was the right decision. Morally, I think mom should have made son pay half. Hell, the kid is a foot taller than she is ... make him get a part time job and learn some responsibility. I was raised in a middle class household with two brothers and two sisters. All of us had part time jobs growing up and we turned out okay - no druggies or jailbirds.

[Jamoche]

I just looked up from the keyboard to realize the second case is halfway through; I'd zoned out after my first glance at the male plaintiff's unfortunate hair. Weird Al can pull off ringlets; this guy can't.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Weird Al can pull off ringlets; this guy can't.

You mean Kevin? Yeah, Weird Al had ringlets but Kevin doesn't have Al's talent, brains or charisma. Kevin, you looked like a douche.

[Guest]

On ‎7‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 4:46 PM, AngelaHunter said:

OH, ugh! This case nearly put me off the spareribs I was eating. I have no idea why the audience found this amusing. Disgusting display in every way, with the vandalizing of cars and screaming matches in the middle of the night. Plaintiff doesn't know a word other than gutter language to describe the def. showing her stuff. Def. has spit out EIGHT kids with eight different sperm donors but most of the litter doesn't live with her because she has a job. Both of these slags need to stop acting like savages, fighting over what must be Shumar's primo dick, and learn how to be civilized and maybe even how to speak English. Oh, and discover the wonderful world of birth control (yeah, too late for that.) So gross. JM coudn't take hearing any more of their sordid, nasty tales. I get it. I felt dirty too.

 

The only humorous comment made during this case was when the glorious defendant saying she doesn't have her kids because of her job and JM saying "what are you an astronaut"?   Funny on so many levels. 

[SRTouch]

yep reruns

FIRST CASE:  Actually a case full of fun litigants - case itself nothing much to write about. Plaintiffs are guys all dressed in ill fitting suits suing over a tow.  These guy were fun from the beginning. Not sure two them are doing in the courtroom, maybe each of the two plaintiffs have their own bodyguard. Could it be that they are both wearing the same size jacket? Short and stout guy's jacket has long sleeves, while tall guy is showing his wrists. First chuckle, well besides the way they're dressed, is the two bodyguard types walk in and have a seat and one of the plaintiffs has to tell them to stand until Douglas tells them to be seated after da judge comes in. Tow company owner is big BIG dude - good thing he probably just sits in the office (hope he has a strong chair). I'm not sure he could hook up a tow, or even get up into a truck. Tow dude says the car owner is a gypsy whose unregistered car was illegally parked, and the police called for the tow. In fact, case pretty much over as soon as he gets to show the proof that he was called by police to tow the car. I don't know if the plaintiff's or gypsys or not, but the one ranking has a strong enough accent that I turned on the CC to understand him. Seems he owns several companys, (food truck, carpet truck, contruction truck, and this 06 porches have all been towed according to this guy) so maybe he needs the bodyguard. He's actually claiming the $295 some odd tow ended up costing him $24k. Everybody in NYC is persecuting this poor guy and his businesses, and he wants this tow company to pay for the misdeeds of the city. MM tries to point out the tow company couldn'the have targeted him since they were just responding to the police called and at the time didn't know it was his car. Ah, the police must have known, as they keep towing his illegally parked vehicles. Uh, maybe if your drivers stopped parking illegally and you registered the cars they wouldn't be towed. Park unregistered car at a meter and leave it for days - well you get towed. Eventually MM gets tired of poking fun at the silly case and sends everybody home.

SECOND CASE: mom suing son over $400 from a loan 5 years ago. Not quite what it seems at first, as they weren't close. He says mom abandoned him as a preschooler, then looked him up 6 years ago and told him she was sick and dying. He says he started visiting and buying her things, but after awhile decided she was taking advantage of her and cut her off. She says they reconnected when she had surgery to remove a tumor. At the time he was between jobs, working at Wendys, but has since go to work at the Post Office. So, while he was struggling, she made a series of loans, but he only partially repaid her. Now it's been a year since she's seen him. He claims the money has been repaid. Says he's now working 6-7 days a week, and just doesn't have the time to visit her. More likely, he had time when he was partially employed, but she was never a high priority. Now he's busy and not willing to make time to visit someone he doesn't really know. Really sad case, as mom eventually admits the case is just a ruse to see the son. They end up hugging in the hallway after the case is dismissed. Who knew? The way to reconnect with long lost family is to sue them over a long lost IOU you find in a drawer

THIRD CASE: Homeowner suing contractor over crappy concrete slab. Seems she replaced a 30yo slab, and the new slab is worse than the old one after only 8 months. Don't think the defendant realises MM was raised in a family of contractors. She has to pry out the facts that he was licensed, but lost the license and his company is going out of business. He says it's going out of business because of declining number of customers - I'm thinking numbers are declining because quality of his work. He tries to dodge responsibility for the bad concrete - first says it might have been ice melt or rock salt during the winter, then it was that the concrete company delivered a bad batch of concrete. Both are possible, though unlikely. More likely he rushed the finishing, maybe adding too much water to the mix after the pour to help levelin it. I'm no expert, just someone who was surrounded by contractors as a kid. I always heard that you can't rush concrete finishing. When you rush you end up with a layer of fine particles floating on water which ends up looking like this job when it cures. MM shoots down each excuse as soon as he comes up with it. Then he says he offered to replace the slab. Sounds reasonable until we find out customer was expected to wait all summer... yep, he wanted customer to wait 6 months. Why did he want the customer to wait six months? Because his business, that was closed down in six months because he didn't have enough business to stay open, was too busy. MM gets excited and slams the guy, and now he realises that she does in fact have some idea of how contractors should do business. When she asks if he would put up with someone treating him like he treated his customer he just says "No", and "he doesn't know what else to say."  MM tells him he's a jerk (twice), a disgrace to contractors like her dad and brother, and rules against him. In Hallterview he's still insisting he was just busy and would have eventually fixed it. Plaintiff tells us in her hallterview he didn't even call.

I have absolutely no basis other than his sad sack appearance and denial of what to anyone should be obvious facts, but I'll put alcohol or some other addiction out there as the root cause.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

These guy were fun from the beginning.

Started out great, with "Your majesty." I notice JM didn't correct him. Hee! Not so much fun when plantiff, who collected tickets and had his broken-down, unlicensed, unregistered, illegally parked POS shit car towed on order by the police. But why was it towed? Not because of the tickets or all that other stuff. No, it was towed because he's a "space goat" and was being racially descriminated against. Because the cops wouldn't have ordered the tow otherwise, right? Evidence that the tow damaged said POS? Oh, he can get that. He just didn't think he needed it today.

Quote

MM tells him he's a jerk (twice),

You know he was hoping the plaintiff would just die. I can see why his business went broke. Despicable behavior.  Rip off the widow with cancer and have the nerve to show your face on national TV. JM's anger was more than justified. I wish she could have ordered 30 lashes for him.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

You know he was hoping the plaintiff would just die. I can see why his business went broke. Despicable behavior.  Rip off the widow with cancer and have the nerve to show your face on national TV. JM's anger was more than justified. I wish she could have ordered 30 lashes for him.

I found this case disturbing for just this reason.  That's exactly what he thought - ignore her and she'll go away permanently.

And a side comment about the first case - seems to me that "they're raysiss" is the catch-all saying for those who refuse to accept responsibility.  Not that there isn't racism - but half the dopes on court shows use this when they've dropped the ball and want to be compensated. 

Ah, why should I get my gastric juices rumbling...as the majority of losers on JM says "it is what it is".

[AngelaHunter]

Levin: "He had gangrene and the question is how much GREEN will the plaintiff get from him."  That is so witty, amusing and charming. Levin, eat shit and die. And then die again.

[Guest]

I really was waiting for him to say something about Tattoo Man (in the sidewalk crowd). Then I realized it's Harvey and he doesn't have the guts to say something to a guy who could make hamburger out of him.

Edited July 18, 2016 by PsychoKlown

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Then I realized it's Harvey and he doesn't have the guts to say something to a guy who could make hamburger out of him.

I forced myself to watch a couple of hallterviews and what I don't understand is why the litigants think they have to stand there and be grabbed, pulled, insulted and ridiculed by that No-Neck Hall Clown. I wish someone would just punch him in the face, then go outside, drag Levin from the short bus and beat the crap out of him too.

[SRTouch]

33 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I forced myself to watch a couple of hallterviews and what I don't understand is why the litigants think they have to stand there and be grabbed, pulled, insulted and ridiculed by that No-Neck Hall Clown. I wish someone would just punch him in the face, then go outside, drag Levin from the short bus and beat the crap out of him too.

Nice to think about, but most of these fools or just there for the appearance money and free lunch. Ah, but more than once Harvey spouts off with something that deserves a punch in the nose.

[ElleMo]

Sept. 5 is the date when the first episode with  Doug Llewelyn will air.  

Does this mean no more Curt?  I can't imagine having two reporters

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/People-s-Court-reporter-Doug-Llewelyn-8338171.php

There is a photo of  Doug Llewelyn and Harvey Levin.  Caption said Levin owns TMZ.  I didn't know that. 

[SRTouch]

reruns

FIRST CASE: first case is just weird. Plaintiff has been married to the defendant 15 years - ok, not so weird, except they've been separated for 5 years and it doesn't sound like they're planning a divorce. Plaintiff seems to be a real flake who has trounless keeping her life together. Awhile back she she was getting evicted from 1 dump, and needed a foster for her 2 cats. They don't even agree on whose cats they are. She says they belong to her, he says they're her daughters, about al they they can agree on is that they're not his even though he has possession. He agreed to foster the cats, has two of his own, but doesn't think she'll be able to care for them at her new dumpy little apartment - seems she's threatened to dump them on the street before. They're in court because she claims he won't give her the cats, and when she showed up unannounced to pick them up major kerfuffle ending up in her arrest. She's got mental issues, refusing to give up anything she considers hers. At one point she talks about sitting on "her" front porch even though she hasn't lived there for 5 years, and the hubby owned it before the marriage.

Husband is pretty much a dufus. Right off the bat I knew he wasn't too swift. When told to raise his right hand, dufus sticks up his left hand. Douglas was cool, didn't say anything, just sort of paused until the guy switched hands. He didn't change the locks of the house, even though it's been 5 years. Took the kerfuffle where she was arrested before he changed to locks, probably when someone suggested it. Acts surprised when wife tells JM she could enter whenever she wanted, and he makes a joke about why shampoo appeared on his dresser (he's cue ball bald). Guess divorce is the same thing, not gonna happen until she does something to force him. Then again, maybe he doesn't want to take a chance a judge will consider some stuff marital assets.

Unfortunately JM gets guy to agree to give her the cats. Don't really think she'd dump them, after all what's hers is hers, but have a feeling the cats have a better home with the dufus and his two cats.

TWO CASE: ex-employee suing owner of resturant  where he had a job as a cook for pay. Defender shows plaintiff cost him more than his outstanding paycheck because he was a no call/no show when he quit. Plaintiff says he quit because being a cook was too stressful. He gave his two week notice, assuring defendant he'd work the two weeks to allow the guy to find and hire replacement. Plaintiff tells JM he was a no show because he was training for the new job and decided to just not show. Defendant says the day after being no call/no show defendant texted the shift leader saying he wasn't coming back, and asking about his pay. Took him a week to contact the owner, again by text, no apology, just where's my paycheck. MM gives the plaintiff a hard time, but then tells the defendant that even though she understands the plaintiff left him short staffed, he still legally owes the wages for when he worked. Everybody agrees they didn't handle things right, and defendant says he's alright with being ordered to pay the cook for the hours he worked, but hope he learned a lesson

THIRD CASE: plaintiff suing her neighbor for a sloppy fence staining job. Seems defendant was spraying his fence, had a "malfuntion" with the sprayer, and splattered her house. He tries to pressure wash, and using some homeowners level cleansers, but just makes it worse. He offers to pay her contractor if she gets an estimate, but figures the $1700 estimate is high. He hires a cheaper contractor to fix it, but she wants her own contractor, who is more expensive. JM says it's her house, so she gets to choose the contractor, do awards her the $1700. Defendant has countersuit for the deposit he paid he hired to work on her house without her go ahead. That got thrown out.

[AngelaHunter]

Watching the repeat today of the woman who had thousands of dollars of Lalique and Baccarat crystal stored in her shed made me realize the kind of patience small claims judges need. "I live in the ghetto. I need you to know that." (why?) and "I'm a 9/11 survivor." Yeah, I'm pretty sure that anyone on the scene well after the catastrophe of that day ended survived.

[ElleMo]

On 7/21/2016 at 6:30 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Watching the repeat today of the woman who had thousands of dollars of Lalique and Baccarat crystal stored in her shed made me realize the kind of patience small claims judges need. "I live in the ghetto. I need you to know that." (why?) and "I'm a 9/11 survivor." Yeah, I'm pretty sure that anyone on the scene well after the catastrophe of that day ended survived.

I am assuming that you are not from NYC, because otherwise you would know that this is not the case. People who worked cleanup -- which, if she is telling the truth, sounds like she was one of them - did get a lot of heath problems.  There were a lot of people who didn't have masks or if they had masks did not wear them properly. The fires burned for three months and there was a lot of toxic dust and ash so anyone in the area from Sept to December was at a lot of risk. I was in Brooklyn and smelled the smoke for what seemed like weeks. 

Even after the fires had burned out, everyone at Ground Zero, as well as at the dump site, were at risk of breathing in toxic dust as things were moved around.

I personally know of a first responder who went around to homes in the area to rescue animals trapped in apartments that the owners could not get access to.  She died 14 years later from cancer linked to the WTC -- and she was in the general area of the  Trade Center, not working  directly on Ground Zero.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/exclusive-judge-denies-9-11-aspca-worker-claim-article-1.2439737

 

The ghetto comment was to explain why she kept nice crystal in the shed. (which makes NO sense.  Thieves will break into a shed to steal, but whatever)  The 9/11 comment I think was to explain why she spoke the way she did.  And also as a little testament and to why she is better than the people living in the house next door.

Edited July 23, 2016 by ElleMo

[SRTouch]

Reruns continue

FIRST CASE: 2 big dogs attacking 20 lb cockapoo case: not going to say much, only watched the start, then found the remote to FF. Plaintiff suing for the max, but it's really just a start on her costs. She was walking by defendant's house with her leashed dog when 2 rottys came charging out the gate onto the road and mauled her dog. Three defendants, a couple and gigantic granny who sat throughout the case. Granny is the one who was present when the attack occured. Says her service dog attacked because plaintiff had the nerve to jerk and pick up her dog when plaintiff saw the two big dogs. Granny has a counterclaim, saying the cockapoo bit her when she went to see if it was injured. She wants the max, $76 for the nip and the rest in emotional distress. That's enough, too hot to take the cats out to relief the stress and don't want the heartburn. (Frank won't go out the door when it gets over 95 - smart kitty, knows the paint on the south facing deck absorbs the heat and will burn his little pink toes.)

So, FF to SECOND CASE:  Plaintiff suing shop because of dented hood. First he tells us he took his jeep to the defendant  because it was overheating. The shop replaced the radiator, he drove it a few days and it's overheating again. This time they replace the water pump and radiator fan, and it fixes the problem. Dude pays, but turns out he shorted the shop a hundred bucks. Shop calls him the next day, and he agrees to drop by with the rest of the money. A couple days later he says he notices his hood is dented, so now he's suing for $100, remarkably the exact amount he still owes the shop. (Says he researched body damage repairs online and made his best guesstimate.) Guy has no plausible theory on how shop damaged his hood, and admits he drove around for days before he says he noticed the dent. Defendant didn't file a countersuit for the $100 he's still owed, and JM as much as said he would have gotten the money if he had.

Really only remarkable thing about the case is the well dressed and articulate the plaintiff was - didn't have a case, but I understood every word. I wonder what he does for a living that he appears to be well off, yet takes all this time and effort to fight over $100.

THIRD CASE: Dad suing his landlord of apartment he rented for daughter during 4 years of college. Kind of boring case. Dad is an electrician and replaced some of the lighting fixtures, then when he left he took out the fixtures. Landlord has the standard clause in the lease saying tenants can't change the fixtures without prior approval, and once the changes are made they become part of the property to be left behind after the tenant moves out. Seems Dad replaced the the normal single lamp with track lighting. Then when the girl moved he took out the lights and left the old fixtures in the closet. So, landlord, who had had a good relationship with the family for 4 years withholds the cost of replacing the lights, and Dad sues. Dad says he had permission to replace the lights, and offered to sell the lights to landlord when he left. When landlord said no, they became his once they were installed, Dad took them out. Gavel comes down, defendant wins.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

I am assuming that you are not from NYC, because otherwise you would know that this is not the case. People who worked cleanup -- which, if she is telling the truth, sounds like she was one of them - did get a lot of heath problems.

Point taken. Thanks!

[AngelaHunter]

Today's cases were all new for me.

The dog case: The colossal nerve of the disgusting defendants just floored me. Drooling Granny, who had a bleeding finger,  suing the plaintiff  for 5K because SHE allowed her dogs to attack the plaintiff's dog. Huge daughter defendant and her blubbering? She felt SO bad for the plaintiff and her poor little dog, but had no intention of paying one cent towards the huge vet bill. The gate is fixed - NOW. Shameful behavior.

Quote

Plaintiff suing shop because of dented hood.

He was beyond ridiculous. The hood of his 15 year old car is not perfectly symmetrical, something he just notices days after he collects it from def. Must be def's fault. Oh shut up.

Electrician Daddy: Pretty much I found this whole thing pretty much boring nonsense. Pretty much, Daddy wants to get paid for some fixtures he pretty much put up for darling daughter, pretty much four years ago. Pretty much, I think he has too much time on his hands. In the hall, he pretty much said he pretty much wasn't happy with the verdict, because pretty much he deserved to get his money back. Pretty much. You shut up too, you idiot.

[Rick Kitchen]

"He's accused of acting like a real hood."  Wow, racist much?  Yeah, I know it was a joke on the guy suing over the hood of his car, but when both people involved are black, tone it down a bit, eh?

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

tone it down a bit, eh?

He's never toned down his disrespectful, insulting,dumb cracks about anyone else (usually women), so why would he now? 

[Guest]

21 hours ago, Rick Kitchen said:

"He's accused of acting like a real hood."  Wow, racist much?  Yeah, I know it was a joke on the guy suing over the hood of his car, but when both people involved are black, tone it down a bit, eh?

Does this guy write his own "material" or do you suppose someone feeds it to him?

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Does this guy write his own "material" or do you suppose someone feeds it to him?

I'm 100%  positive it's his own crap. Who else would come up with stuff that maybe was funny during the vaudeville era,  like "___  her? He hardly knew 'er!"  "the louse", "lying sack of garbage" and all the other disgusting shit he and the HallClown spew? I think he's proud of the fact that he's universally hated by everyone who knows his name.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I'm 100%  positive it's his own crap. Who else would come up with stuff that maybe was funny during the vaudeville era,  like "___  her? He hardly knew 'er!"  "the louse", "lying sack of garbage" and all the other disgusting shit he and the HallClown spew? I think he's proud of the fact that he's universally hated by everyone who knows his name.

Yeah, you're right.  He thinks he's a real panic.  Do you suppose he tells the giddy 16 year olds who look exactly like (fill in the blank) "pull my finger"?

And to add to the hate:  I swear on all that's holy I don't watch that TMZ show (frankly, I'm not sure it's even on anymore) but when I'd change channels it really chapped my fanny how he'd stand there chewing on a straw from some takeout drink.  It looked so junior-highish.  We used to do that a century ago while standing around the high school basketball games trying to look cool.

Sorry Harve, it wasn't cool 35 years ago and it certainly is not cool now.  Just stop it.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

 he'd stand there chewing on a straw from some takeout drink.

I happened on TMZ about five years ago while flippping channels. There was Levin, 55+ years old, in his tight black tee, with his giant sippy cup, giggling like a pubescent girl with his silly, twerpy teenage posse about what they found in Britney Spear's garbage or some such. Are there any more ways for him to be repulsive?

[SRTouch]

Reruns

FIRST CASE: Waste of airtime. Girl with old thousand dollar handbag suing hair salon because the inside of her bag got some bleach stains. I wasn't paying close attention, but if I heard correctly she had been going to this salon for a long time, yet it seemed to upset her that the stylists spoke to each other in Spanish - in fact after MM ruled against her she mumbles that it's because place is owned and staffed by Hispanics. 

SECOND CASE: Sad case of elderly lady whose lab/pit mix bites so many people she wasn't even sure who was suing her. She wrote her answer to the complaint about some other incident where the dog bit a man, and plaintiff turns out to be a ... young woman. Sadly, when she finally "remembers" the correct incident, her story is still inconsistent - no way of knowing if her memory is hazy, or if there might not be more attacks in the woodwork.

Really sad part of the case is the poor dog. She can't control the dog, and the poor thing is doing its best to protect her against anyone he perceives as a threat. Unfortunately, there have been at least two bites, so if animal control ever gets on the ball the dog will be taken away as a vicious animal. Could be a perfectly good dog with the right owner, but dangerous in this home. And, what's with the hubby? Wife says she doesn't want the dog, but hubby wants to keep the dog. So, why is she out walking the dog she can't control and doesn't want?

THIRD CASE: Golfer breaks windshield of passing car, and for some reason won't pay for replacement. Seems other golfers advised dude he wasn't liable. Quick ruling, MM tells him he is liable, and needs to pay up. Dude still wants to argue with ruling in hallterview, doesn't feel he should pay.

[BubblingKettle]

The salon owner from today's bleached purse case said that she's sad to lose a customer --- I wouldn't miss that woman! She was full of baloney about the Formula 409 purse debacle. And, I'm sorry, but eating a greasy meal while at the salon? Tacky. You can have all the pricy purses you want, but you'll still be a tacky person shoveling food into your face (and onto your purse) while at the hairdressers'. If you go to a high-end salon that serves refreshments, or if you're at the salon for several hours, I can understand having a little something. But I'm just imagining being in my hairdresser's chair and looking over to see someone elbow-deep in a greasy meal. My side-eye would reach new levels. The plaintiff's comment about it being a 'Spanish problem' was really rude, too.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

 You can have all the pricy purses you want, but you'll still be a tacky person shoveling food into your face (and onto your purse) while at the hairdressers'.

"They didn't do nothing for me." "What does "pristine" mean?" "I'm a student."

 

45 minutes ago, CoolWhipLite said:

The plaintiff's comment about it being a 'Spanish problem' was really rude, too.

We know that JM doesn't follow the law and she's totally biased. If you're Spanish, you win - period. If you're looking for a boe-nanza to pay for your wrecked bag, even though said bag was already covered in greasy food stains, red Sharpie marks and other... stuff, and you're not Spanish you're out of luck.

So she obviously was trying to spray something to clean up the mess she made with her food and the top came off the bottle. When she graduates and begins her brilliant career she can buy another one.

Strangely enough, I disliked the Julius Ceasar-haircut golfing douchebag even more. He can spend thousands of dollars to knock a little ball around endlessly, but pay $267 for a car window he smashed? No way. He's just lucky it didn't hit her in the head and kill her. What a total jerk. If that were my husband I wouldn't be sitting there smiling. I'd have browbeaten him until he paid to avoid the humiliation.

[Rick Kitchen]

55 minutes ago, CoolWhipLite said:

The salon owner from today's bleached purse case said that she's sad to lose a customer --- I wouldn't miss that woman! She was full of baloney about the Formula 409 purse debacle. And, I'm sorry, but eating a greasy meal while at the salon? Tacky. You can have all the pricy purses you want, but you'll still be a tacky person shoveling food into your face (and onto your purse) while at the hairdressers'. If you go to a high-end salon that serves refreshments, or if you're at the salon for several hours, I can understand having a little something. But I'm just imagining being in my hairdresser's chair and looking over to see someone elbow-deep in a greasy meal. My side-eye would reach new levels. The plaintiff's comment about it being a 'Spanish problem' was really rude, too.

I used to go to a barber that offered wine with your haircut, but I kept thinking that I didn't want hair getting into my drink.

[Jamoche]

I live next to a golf course. There's a buffer zone of redwood trees, but it's not enough to stop all the golf balls. The course is not liable for anything; the golfers may be, but by the time you notice your window is broken, they're long gone.

[ElleMo]

12 hours ago, SRTouch said:

THIRD CASE: Golfer breaks windshield of passing car, and for some reason won't pay for replacement. Seems other golfers advised dude he wasn't liable. Quick ruling, MM tells him he is liable, and needs to pay up. Dude still wants to argue with ruling in hallterview, doesn't feel he should pay.

I must admit I was a little perplexed by this.  Shouldn't the gold club be liable?  The have the course so close to the road and no nets or anything?

[AZChristian]

If the release a golfer signs to play says, "Golf course is not liable for damages caused by golf balls," then the golfer is liable.  (I think.)

[SRTouch]

8 hours ago, ElleMo said:

I must admit I was a little perplexed by this.  Shouldn't the gold club be liable?  The have the course so close to the road and no nets or anything?

IMHO yes the course owners have some liability. Seems to me the golfer has the lion's share, as he hit the errant ball. Then the golf course owners who could, and maybe should, have prevented the accident with nets or a different course design. I wonder if the course owners could dodge their part by putting up signs in the clubhouse and maybe a statement on the receipt to the effect that golfers are responsible for any damage their balls cause if they hit it out of bounds. Too bad the driver didn't sue both the golfer and the course, then we might have learned something more from the ruling. Seems to me one of those cases where a plaintiff can probably choose to sue both, or pick one. Anyway, to me it seems ludicrous to expect the public, or their insurance, to pay for the damage.

6 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

If the release a golfer signs to play says, "Golf course is not liable for damages caused by golf balls," then the golfer is liable.  (I think.)

I agree up to a point. I think they could probably shift the blame to a golfer, but then you'd have to be able to identify the golfer. No problem this time, as this guy was willing to apologize, just not pay for the damage. I don't think anything the course has golfers sign could excuse them of liability for damage caused to a third party. But then, my legal training is from court tv ? and Matlock reruns ?

[SRTouch]

FIRST CASE: Davey James was arrested for DUI now suing his lawyer, Benjamin Yu, Esquire, saying lawyer not only botched his defense, but the lawyer was arrested and Benny's brother Kenny ended up representing him at his hearing. Listening to Davey, it seems he has no problem admitting he was driving after drinking at a party, but feels the money he paid the Yu Bros should have made the charges go away. Davey is the guy who says he has loads of experience with the judicial system because he used to be a "streetside pharmacist" and has lost count of how many times he's been arrested. Case is entertaining, but ultimately pretty straight forward. Benny earned the retainer by working the case and appearing at several hearings leading up to the final hearing where brother Kenny stepped in.

Update: seems Benny has been convicted and was due for sentencing July 13.  http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202758967718/Two-Convicted-of-Payments-to-Steer-Potential-Clients?slreturn=20160629113426 Have to wonder if he still had that smirk on his face after the conviction. Another lawyer charged in the case accepted a plea agreement and was sentenced to six months in jail. http://nypost.com/2015/02/21/lawyer-pleads-guilty-to-courthouse-bribery-scheme/ 

SECOND CASE: Pit bull kills yorkie - as soon as I heard the yorkie was killed I knew I wasn't going to watch. Hit FF before the defendants finished walking in.

THIRD CASE: college student suing landlord over deposit. Yet another landlord who doesn't seem to know the rules regarding keeping a deposit. This time it's an absentee landlord who has relatives managing the property. A walk through is done with the landlord's rep when the 3 college girls move out, everything seems to be good, and the plaintiff goes homes expecting her deposit to be mailed. Course no one bothered with taking pictures before or after tenancy,  except for one pitiful picture of crappy wall spackle/spot paint repair. Despite a requirement of an itemized list for any money being withheld with 30 days or double the amount wrongfully being withheld it takes a couple months before any money is returned, and a joke of an itemized list (among other things, charges for smoke alarms batteries and light bulbs). In the end the plaintiff gets back most of the deposit. The one crappy picture allowed defendant to keep a little something. Would have been better off not trying to patch the nail holes.

This is the case where, the first time around, I said the defendant was a Charles Manson look alike.

[DoctorK]

Quote

Course no one bothered with taking pictures before or after tenancy

As others have mentioned, this is really frustrating. For every apartment I have rented in my life (starting in 1975), I have before and after pictures including panoramic and close up views. I did the same whenever I moved into a new office and took special care to take pictures when I was responsible for a construction site trailer and a warehouse that my employer rented. Admittedly, my pre-digital pictures (I went digital in 1999 just before my first trip to Europe, when 1 megapixel was considered high resolution) are in various boxes scattered in closets around the house, but if I needed to I think I could find all of them.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Davey James was arrested for DUI now suing his lawyer, Benjamin Yu, Esquire

It was kind of interesting seeing a lawyer who smirked though the whole case and appeared to be just as sleazy and slimy as Levin. Not one ounce of shame.

As for plaintiff, I don't understand how a drug dealer who has been arrested "so many times I can't count them" gets out of prison,  free to get drunk and drive (and lie about pot holes and admit he tried to "beat" the breathalizer test. 

Quote

Yet another landlord who doesn't seem to know the rules regarding keeping a deposit

He also didn't seem to realize it's not 1968 any more.

Quote

Course no one bothered with taking pictures before or after tenancy,  except for one pitiful picture of crappy wall spackle/spot paint repair.

Yabbut, he "feels" that the one picture should represent ALL the walls.

[Rick Kitchen]

What college coeds in their right minds would rent from a guy who looks like that?

[Guest]

On ‎7‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 4:36 PM, Rick Kitchen said:

I used to go to a barber that offered wine with your haircut, but I kept thinking that I didn't want hair getting into my drink.

I used to go to a salon where they served glasses of wine without anything to accompany it.  Not that I'm greedy and looking for a buffet and a pedicure but in my mind I'm thinking that if you serve wine, no snacks then shove your clients out on Rt. 9 on a Friday - something really bad can happen. 

It's my nature to look at things that can possibly go wrong.  And as far as food in the salon....a big "no" to that.

Edited July 30, 2016 by PsychoKlown
grammar

[DebbieW]

On 7/28/2016 at 1:02 PM, SRTouch said:

THIRD CASE: Golfer breaks windshield of passing car, and for some reason won't pay for replacement. Seems other golfers advised dude he wasn't liable. Quick ruling, MM tells him he is liable, and needs to pay up. Dude still wants to argue with ruling in hallterview, doesn't feel he should pay.

His argument was that he wasn't being negligent when he hit the golf ball so he shouldn't have to pay.  He thinks that he's excused from the "shit sometimes happens that you're responsible for" club.

[SRTouch]

reruns

FIRST CASE: Dog attack case. I don't remember it, so I must have hit FF when it was on the first time. Seems the dad and adult son came to visit ex-neighbors, and when the son got too close to the fence a pit bull jumped up and bit him. Now they're in court asking $5k for medical bills and pain and suffering. (Dad is noticeably absent because he didn't want to sue his friend who is terminal and now in hospice care.) MM is having trouble believing the son didn't lean over the fence. I actually have no trouble with that part of the story. I've seen some athletic dogs who would have no trouble jumping up, putting their front feet on a 5' fence, leaning forward and snapping at someone 12-18" away from the top of a fence. JM rules for the defendant.

SECOND CASE: plaintiff pays big bucks to furniture dude, and he tries to deliver the wrong furniture. Sounds like they delivery guys were pretty rude, kicked her out of the room while they set up the beds. Lo and behold, when they let her in after they finish the beds are not what she ordered. She says she gets into a shouting match with the delivery guys, and eventually she signed the delivery invoice. Unfortunately, seems she is illiterate and didn't know what she was signing. She wants her deposit refunded. He says her furniture was back ordered, and he offered to give her store credit or she could wait for her order.  Turns out three pieces of furniture were delivered, one defective piece and two substitutions. JM rules against furniture dude, then as she's walking out she tells plaintiff's daughter to explain the ruling, as poor mom is obviously puzzled when JM gets up and starts to walks out

I had a similar thing happen, where I ordered a bedroom suite, it was back ordered, and when it finally came in one piece, either the armoire or dresser, was damaged. I never even saw the damage, the store caught the damage when the shipment came in and called. This was a few years ago, but as I recall they offered to reorder, give me store credit, or a full refund - I chose reorder. They offered to deliver the rest of the stuff and give me the piece (one of the drawers was damaged) free. I ended up waiting for undamaged furniture and they gave me a couple hundred dollar discount.

THIRD CASE: shady used car salesman sells a series a junkers to plaintiff. This is the guy who was selling cars out of a barbershop. First car is brought back because it overheats. Second car has problems with the brakes. She says she ended up wrecking that car when the brakes failed, causing a 4 car pileup. Case should be open and shut - she's buying crappy as is junkers with no warranty. Ah, but here's the thing, she has him on tape after the accident offering to return her money. MM ends up ruling for the salesman, saying it was an as is sale, and the only way for plaintiff to win would have been a statement from a mechanic saying car was defective.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

she's buying crappy as is junkers with no warranty.

Crappy and ancient junkers. Her choice!

Buy a fourteen year old Honda, and then a thirteen year old "Interpid" from some guy at a barbershop and then get outraged that those cars have problems.

As for the accident, only she says that she wasn't driving too close and rear-ended someone. Proof? Don't be ridiculous.

"I wouldn't recommend nobody buying nothing from him. He's a crookster." So she recommends that someone buy something from him? Another student. *Sigh* It seems we'll have doctors and lawyers speaking this way in the future. WTF is going on? Why can college students not speak basic English?

Quote

plaintiff pays big bucks to furniture dude

Aside from the legalities, I just can't understand how someone who is still young can be illiterate these days. How is this possible? Aren't literacy classes free? Maybe I'm missing something? The world today requires that one be able to read. Her kids won't always be around to do her reading for her.

[SRTouch]

FIRST CASE: Another long time Section 8 renter wants his return of his security. Claims apartment was uninhabitable and rat infested - yet he stayed 4 years. According to the defendant landlord, the plaintiff was the only tenant in the 16 unit complex complaining of rats. Plaintiff complained to Section 8, and he says the apartment repeatedly failed Section 8 inspections, and he has the inspection reports that prove it. He passes up a half dozen reports - not one failure. Then he does the familiar song and dance routine of "I gave Douglas the wrong reports, here's the failures." This time he passes up a couple failed inspections - not on the defendant's property, but for his new address. Uh oh, another in a long line of litigants who tries to pass off evidence only to have it back fire when the judge reads it. Then we find out plaintiff stayed three months past the expiration of his lease, owing rent for those three months because Section 8 had stopped paying their portion when the lease ended. So the plaintiff actually owes more in rent than what the defendant withheld - never mind the damage he says the tenant left behind. Case dismissed and no countersuit filed.

SECOND CASE: Plaintiff suing shop for botched auto repair. Seems guy took his car in for transmission work, the mechanic warned him there was electrical system damage, but he all he wanted worked on was the transmission. Turns out, after the transmission was done the car died a few blocks after he picked it up. Now he wants a complete refund. These guys were both snappy dressers, plaintiff in suite and tie and defendant is wearing his fancy red jacket. Turns out after the car died and was towed back to the shop, the mechanic went ahead and replaced the coil and says it's been ready ever since. Problem is, when plaintiff is told the additional repair cost $160 he just abandons the car and files a complaint with BBB and a small claims case. JM orders plaintiff to pay for the repair and pick up the car.

THIRD CASE: Lady suing a flipper after she bought a house and the new roof leaks and shingles are blowing off. Sale was as-is, no warranty and didn't help that her home inspector didn't find anything wrong with it before the sale. Case didmissed.

[Rick Kitchen]

I just saw an ad for the new season saying that Doug Llewellyn is coming back.  No indication if he's replacing Harvey or Kurt, but either would be great.