The People's Court - General Discussion

[AZChristian]

3 hours ago, Rick Kitchen said:

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.

And both would be amazing.  

[WhitneyWhit]

Today's rerun was one of the few times that JM has made me angry: I didn't find anything funny about the way those kids behaved, either in court or at the house they destroyed, they were obnoxious brats and should have been called out as such.

And I really wish JM had demanded to see some identification because no way in hell were those kids (with exception of the girl doing all the talking) anywhere near 18.

[Rick Kitchen]

There was no way in hell that one kid was 16!

[AZChristian]

23 minutes ago, Rick Kitchen said:

There was no way in hell that one kid was 16!

They were all supposed to be 18.  Even more unbelievable.

[SRTouch]

FIRST CASE: uncle suing niece for rent, and niece has countersuit because she says place was filled with lead paint and unsafe for her toddler. As plaintiff, uncle starts off and he claims that when his niece and her family were evicted from their apartment he stepped in and let them move into his empty apartment. He makes it sound like he did it to help family, but sure sounds like he treated them more like tenants than family. He was charging rent, and when they missed paying, and the husband told him his hours had been cut, dear uncle didn't waste any time starting the eviction process. So, they moved out in September still owing August rent, but it was the end of October because they got everything moved out. Course niece has different story. First off, she says she has proof rent was paid in Aug. She says the place had been vacant for years, and needed a lot of work to become liveable. She says uncle was always very slow to fix anything. Come September her son had blood work done to start school (probably meant preschool since he's three) and tested positive for elevated lead levels. An inspection is done, and she's told the place is full of lead paint and her son needs to leave immediately. She passes Douglas some pictures, and whoa, the place is a dump. The lead paint if just the tip of the iceberg. MM holds up a picture labeled "son's room" which shows water damaged ceiling with cracks, peeling paint and what looks like mold. MM is appalled that she moved her family into the place - but you have to remember she moved in after being evicted. She may not have thought she had much choice, and this place was better than being homeless. Besides, even though it was a dump, she had family support close by - not so much the uncle, but her mother was next door to babysit and help care for the toddler. I wanted to ask about public assistance. Generally I'm not a big fan of section 8, but this is a young family struggling to get by (husband at least works, but not making enough to support the family). Anyway, MM gets pretty excited telling uncle he's crazy to think he can sue for rent on a condemned apartment. Niece comes into some lecturing for moving her family into a dump, and gets questioned on portions of the countersuit. Nobody gets anything. 

Side note: poor uncle must have been standing in front of a space heater, or maybe the lights were really hot on his side of the courtroom. Guy was wearing dark blue long sleeve shirt which really showed his sweaty underarms. He's still trying to win the case in the hallterview. What really gets me is he never once expresses any concern for the todler.

SECOND CASE: plaintiff suing the tree service who worked on his neighbors tree. He says they drove onto his front lawn, leaving ruts and damaging his underground irrigation system, to work on neighbor's tree. Guy really leaves a bad first impression. He starts out by saying the contractor damaged the restoration project on his lawn he was doing with the city. After questioning by JM, we find out the city's part in the restoration project is pretty much that the city warned him to fix up the yard or be fined. I had a couple problems with the plaintiff, not the least of which was that he was rushing his rehearsed story. The contractor's problem is he went onto the property without permission. I'm not convinced anything was damaged, but, unless there's some time of easement you don't just go park your truck somewhere, and especially when you're going to be blocking a driveway. Sort of a silly case to go to court over. Plaintiff only asking for $260 to reseed the part of the yard where the truck was, contractor should have just paid when he saw the proof that work was done. Oh, and I don't know where they were, other than in California, but that was one crappy landscaping job. 

THIRD CASE: Dude suing oil change shop claiming they put the wrong oil filter on his 16yo vehicle and the engine blew. To prove his case he brought along a shade tree mechanic. Defendant brought along his certified technician who probably does more oil changes in a week than the plaintiff's guy has done in his lifetime, and he's been doing it weekly for 15 years. Doesn't mean the certified guy didn't screw up, but he certainly sounds a lot more credible than the plaintiff's guy. It really doesn't help for the plaintiff's mechanic to try to claim the wrong filter was used because a generic part was used - hey that's pretty much standard, not just with car parts but everything. I thought it funny when he pulls a Fram filter out of the box. Not saying anything about Fram being a bad filter, but if you claim that generic filters are bad why bring in a generic instead of the OEM Chrysler Mopar filter. Nope, to win he needed to bring in something showing the part number for that brand of filter used was not the accepted replacement.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

this is a young family struggling to get by

They didn't look all that young to me. They thought it was fine to live in a place that would have shocked and appalled the Munsters. I've seen pictures of condemned buildings that looked better.  I wouldn't let my dog live in that place never mind kids, and I wasn't touched by mom, screwing up her face, trying to squeeze out tears (to try and get lots of money for "emotional distress) and failing. Plaintiff was an irritating clown, acting as though he were auditioning for something. I'm glad no one got anything.

Quote

After questioning by JM, we find out the city's part in the restoration project is pretty much that the city warned him to fix up the yard or be fined.

That was funny, as though this were some sort of restoration of an historical heritage property, and not just a neglected wreck that the neighbours were complaining about. Don't try to fast-talk JM. It never works.

[speac]

23 hours ago, Rick Kitchen said:

There was no way in hell that one kid was 16!

I thought so too then realized 'that one kid' was most likely a girl.

[Rick Kitchen]

Just now, speac said:

I thought so too then realized 'that one kid' was most likely a girl.

:O

[SRTouch]

Entertaining reruns today, but no complicated legal cases. First case is brother and sister agreeing on a rent to own deal on a house. Legal case is open and shut. Both are legally obligated to pay the rent. Brother doesn't like her boyfriend, so she comes home one to find Bro has up and moved out - taking her big screen TV. First chuckle, she calls the TV a hibachi instead of Hitachi. She wants the rent for the few months left on the lease (rent to own deal scrapped since she can't swing it on her own). MM orders him to pay his portion of the rent, and pay for the TV he took on the way out. The entertainment value comes from a couple of Bro's statements. When talking about why he doesn't like the sister's BF, he slips up and says it's "his woman's job to clean up after him." "HIS woman" has her own place and works, but when she visits he says she needs to cater to his needs. Course MM jumped all over him for that. He gives a sort of half ass apology, saying he didn't mean any disrespect to MM, but he refused to apologize the statement. Later on, he says he kicked in $400 towards the purchase of the TV he took. Then he confesses it was only $200, he was just trying to build up his case for taking the TV. Not sure what difference that $200 made - sis still paid the majority of the cost. He's not arguing it was jointly owned, his argument is there were three TVs, and he only took the big one in the living room. The final thing that made my ears perk up was sis saying his time in the USMC "changed" him. As I understood it, he's 56yo, and served 6 years. So, it's probably been 30+ years since he got out. Any changes the Marines caused should have been apparent long before she went in with him on the property. 

SECOND CASE:  clueless woman rents an unfinished basement in Manhattan. Without even getting a lease she pays $1600+, a months rent and security, agreeing to pay to turn the basement into liveable space. Then she actually gets someone to start work. Lucky for her, the guy quits and leaves the job before she sinks much money in the project. Now she finds an actual licensed contractor come to look things over. After a quick look the contractor refuses to even make an estimate - no way to make it legal without MAJOR renovations. We're talking creating windows and a second doorway in the basement of anew existing two story structure - I suppose it's possible, but why? She tries to back out, but landlord wants more money for breaking the nonexistent lease. So, she's in court asking for the money she paid, plus the 500 odd bucks she paid a family friend to start the work. Defendant has a countersuit asking for two months rent and thinks he should get to keep the $1600 she paid. The entertainment comes from how utterly clueless the litigants act. Plaintiff is all smiles and laughter about how stupid she was. Defendant trying to act like he should be able to ignore the law about renting the basement illegally. 

THIRD CASE: Another open and shut case, with entertaining litigants. Plaintiff wants auto shop to buy him a replacement for his '99 junker. He's one of people who is so busy trying to get his point across that he doesn't listen to the judge's question. To make it more entertaining, when he does answer or present evidence it's more likely to hurt his case then help. The clincher comes when JM asks if he has any evidence of what he's saying. He laughs and asks what does she expect, for him to bring along a mechanic to testify. Ok, that's enough, JM throws out the case. Final jab comes as they leave the courtroom. Plaintiff threatens to come to the defendant's shop later that afternoon. Defendant finds that funny, as he no longer owns the shop.

[SoapDoc]

Quote

The clincher comes when JM asks if he has any evidence of what he's saying. He laughs and asks what does she expect, for him to bring along a mechanic to testify. Ok, that's enough, JM throws out the case. 

This was hilarious -- especially since the plaintiff didn't seem to get it at first. I had to replay because it just made me laugh.

[SRTouch]

Some entertaining reruns this morning. FIRST CASE is the fast talking landscaper getting sued for never finishing a 2k job. Entertaining because this guy just keeps throwing out words even when nothing he's saying jibes. Amnesia strikes when the plaintiff says he was caught shoplifting some boots. He has no idea where she came up with this wild tail, never happened, no way no how. Oh, she has proof... well he was never arrested or charged, just banned from the store. Then his countersuit is a hoot. Seems the homeowner got his name through an online referral site. When she became dissatisfied with him, she contacted the referral site and complained. The site settled with the lady and returned $500 of what she had paid, but told the dude they weren't referring anyone else unless he paid them back. Another bout of fast talking from the defendant about how the lady cost him thousands in lost business from referrals. MM asks why he didn't just pay the 500 bucks - he explains it was the principle. MM awards nothing on the countersuit. Plaintiff was asking for 2k, but her award was cut in half because she got the $500 from the referral site, and admitted the dude did $500 worth of work.

SIDENOTE: Wonder how many viewers will think twice about using a referral site when they learn crooks like this guy can be referred even when the site knows they're ripping off customers. This guy admits he didn't do what he was paid to, but he can buy his way back onto the referral list at anytime. 

SECOND CASE: Another entertaining case. Plaintiff is suing ex-employee for 3+k for substandard work. Seems she owned 20 apartment and the defendant did maintenance work for her. When he was hurt on the job, he sued for his medical bills, won, and plaintiff was fined big bucks for not paying the required workers comp. Now she wants him to return all the money she paid him for work two years ago to help pay the fime. She wins 200 bucks for window screens he admits in a text message to having.

THIRD CASE is dry cleaner case, which I skipped

[Rick Kitchen]

Is that "referral service" Angie's List?

[SRTouch]

11 minutes ago, Rick Kitchen said:

Is that "referral service" Angie's List?

Good question, but I nobody volunteered the info and MM didn't ask. Maybe because the plaintiff received $500 as a settlement and there was an agreement in place not to identify the service. I wouldn't think her settlement agreement could stop the defendant or judge in a real court, but I could see court TV not putting the name out there - sort of like TV litigants not having to give their name or the name of their business

[Art Vandelay]

I really don't get the point of the street interviews. Just get back to the case! I don't care what some nitwit thinks about the law.  

I always thought those segments were taped in NYC in Times  Square but maybe not anymore. Repeats recently have had Levin in LA on a TMZ tour bus.  Talk about self promotion.  I guess they must be the same production company. 

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

I really don't get the point of the street interviews.

The point is for Levin to get his ugly face and screeching voice on camera as much as possible. TMZ is Levin.

[AZChristian]

Today's ridiculous case about the red velvet / rum cake mixup . . . not only was the plaintiff's case RIDICULOUS, but the judge should have fined her $5,000 for the horrible dress she wore to court.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Today's ridiculous case about the red velvet / rum cake mixup . . . not only was the plaintiff's case RIDICULOUS, but the judge should have fined her $5,000 for the horrible dress she wore to court.

The real icing on the cake was that she did not get how outrageous her lawsuit was - and how foolish she looked. 

And as for her dress - I really thought it was one of those "jokey" dresses - like a t-shirt tuxedo.  On first look it resembled a tight-black dress with an outline that looked like a French maid or waitress.  Either way it was hideous and certainly should not have seen the light of day.

[Zahdii]

Recap, please?  I missed the show today.  And if anyone has a screen cap of the horrible dress, please share.

[AZChristian]

I didn't want to risk breaking my camera, so I have no screen shot.  Sorry.

RECAP:  Mama in horrendous dress that was 3 sizes too small was suing a bakery for $1,500.  Why?  Because she ordered a 10-inch cake for $34 for her 22-year-old daughter's birthday.  Daughter wanted rum cake; Mama had originally ordered red velvet.  Mama called the next day to change the order.  Sadly, it appears that a red velvet cake was provided, although I seem to remember the baker saying that it WAS a rum cake.  Regardless, that's irrelevant in the long run.  

Bear in mind that the case was filmed several months after the party.  But Mama had brought the remnants of the cake with her as evidence.  

Points that were presented:

• Daughter was so upset that it was a red velvet cake instead of rum cake that she ran out of the party, deserting her guests.
• Mama wanted to be reimbursed for the cost of the venue, the cost of the DJ, all other party expenses and pain and suffering to the tune of $1,500.
• Mama said that 35 guests were there for the horror of the daughter seeing a red velvet cake, although more had been invited.  (It doesn't seem surprising that daughter doesn't have a lot of friends, if this is how she reacts to a minor disappointment.)
• Mama said that her daughter was still a child at 22; Judge Milian pointed out that she was a practicing attorney at 23, so she wasn't having that excuse from Mama.
• Mama was expecting more than 35 guests apparently, but she ordered a 10-inch round cake?????
• Judge MM cracked me up when she looked at the defendant and asked him how he could sleep at night after putting people through the horror of providing the wrong cake.  (She was on sarcasm overdrive.)
• Mama never did "get it" that her case was ridiculous.  Even in the halterview she was complaining that she had spent all that money on a party and that it was totally ruined by the 10-inch cake.

Did I miss anything?

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I didn't want to risk breaking my camera, so I have no screen shot.  Sorry.

RECAP:  Mama in horrendous dress that was 3 sizes too small was suing a bakery for $1,500.  Why?  Because she ordered a 10-inch cake for $34 for her 22-year-old daughter's birthday.  Daughter wanted rum cake; Mama had originally ordered red velvet.  Mama called the next day to change the order.  Sadly, it appears that a red velvet cake was provided, although I seem to remember the baker saying that it WAS a rum cake.  Regardless, that's irrelevant in the long run.  

Bear in mind that the case was filmed several months after the party.  But Mama had brought the remnants of the cake with her as evidence.  

Points that were presented:

• Daughter was so upset that it was a red velvet cake instead of rum cake that she ran out of the party, deserting her guests.
• Mama wanted to be reimbursed for the cost of the venue, the cost of the DJ, all other party expenses and pain and suffering to the tune of $1,500.
• Mama said that 35 guests were there for the horror of the daughter seeing a red velvet cake, although more had been invited.  (It doesn't seem surprising that daughter doesn't have a lot of friends, if this is how she reacts to a minor disappointment.)
• Mama said that her daughter was still a child at 22; Judge Milian pointed out that she was a practicing attorney at 23, so she wasn't having that excuse from Mama.
• Mama was expecting more than 35 guests apparently, but she ordered a 10-inch round cake?????
• Judge MM cracked me up when she looked at the defendant and asked him how he could sleep at night after putting people through the horror of providing the wrong cake.  (She was on sarcasm overdrive.)
• Mama never did "get it" that her case was ridiculous.  Even in the halterview she was complaining that she had spent all that money on a party and that it was totally ruined by the 10-inch cake.

Did I miss anything?

You nailed this recap AZCHRISTIAN.   Unfortunately I do not have a screen shot either.  

I'd try to find a picture of the dress but I wouldn't even know where to start looking?  Faux French maid?  Sausage dressage? 

If I find something similar I will post it.  Maybe I should start at Party City.

[AZChristian]

This just shows the top of the dress.  The bottom is equally bad, and there are no words to describe this while she was walking away in the hallway.  

Edited August 18, 2016 by AZChristian

[Guest]

I think she was going for the "I wanna look 10 - no 20 pounds thinner on tv so I'll wear this jokey dress"

Doesn't that top look like a corset?

[AZChristian]

I thought it looked like some kind of steampunk transformer dress.  But I don't know what she would be turning into.

[Taeolas]

To clarify a bit further (and it was just as incredible a second time as it was the first).

She ordered that cake (For 34 people.... I don't think anyone would get enough cake to taste red velvet at that size) for 34$.

The next day she realized/remembered her Prima Donna Daughter despises Red Velvet and called to change it to a Rum cake. 

The baker had already made the cake, but for good customer service was willing to make a second cake for just 10$ more. 

When Mom came to pick it up, the tags got mixed up somehow, and she was presented with the Red Velvet cake. She did question it at the time, but the baker assured her it was Rum without checking further. (a mistake he admitted to). 

Party started, cake was cut, Daughter sees it is Red Velvet and storms out in a rage, ruining the entire party. 

Baker is called, realizes his mistake and makes normal offers to repair the situation (refunding the cake costs, providing both cakes for free, etc....). Mom has none of that, and wants at least 300$ for the party hall rental. 

Cake is frozen (after about 1/3 has been served) and brought in as evidence for some reason. Given to the baker after the case.

Case is laughed out of the People's court, though mom does get her 34$ back. (I think everyone forgot the extra 10$ that was charged for the Order change)

 

 

The Third case was fairly interesting too, just not as face palmy as the first one. It had a guy who had a well written contract, picture evidence and all his ducks in a row for an incomplete lawncare case. The homeowner walked out with nothing given the evidence. JMM was practically gushing over how prepared he was.

[SRTouch]

RERUNS STILL

FIRST CASE: This is the lady trying to skate on paying her auto repair bill because the receptionist/clerk read the work order wrong and undercharged her. Lady turned in her car for repair before leaving on vacation. When she got back and checked on the status, she learned the bill was close to $900, instead $750 like the estimate. Owner of the shop agreed to cut the bill to $800. She was supposed to pay $750 cash when she picked up the car, leaving a balance of $50. He writes on the receipt that the new balance will be 50 bucks. But his note is vague, so when the customer comes in to pay the clerk only charges $50. Customer thinks she won the lottery and refuses to pay the correct amount, saying they owner harassed her, blowing up her phone demanding payment. Hey lady, you knew how much you owed, you should have made arrangements to pay as soon as you learned about the error. Owner says they called three times, and when she refused to pay sent a certified letter and filed suit. Customer also tries to present shakey evidence, claiming the repairs were never done and she had to pay someone else a grand to get her car fixed. She even has receipts, not for what the shop did but for the other repairs - for an oil change and an illegible receipt out of a receipt book that could be bought at any office supply store. (Or why buy a receipt book when you can just rip a receipt out of a book in three store?) MM gets a little worked up and gives a lecture about how society is going down the toilet when people try to take advantage of a simple mistake to get out of paying their bill. 

SECOND CASE: Couple buy a mobile home, and now are suing the seller because they find it needs more renovation than expected. Seller is selling his mom's trailer after she died, which has been empty for 8 months. MM looks at the contract and bill of sale, and it's plainly an as is sale. She repeatedly asks plaintiff's what the seller did wrong. The best they can come up with is that the trailer had a new heater and new skirting, so obviously the seller was hiding the fact that the pipes had frozen and caused leaks resulting in water damage and mold. Case thrown out.

THIRD CASE: Plaintiff pays her friend $300 to babysit, but loses custody before any babysitting takes place. She has a history of losing custody of her kids, having previously lost custody of her son for 2 1/2 years. This time her toddler's daycare calls Protective Services because she comes to pick up her other toddler while smelling of alcohol. Turns out she's already under investigation for leaving her 8yo left home alone, and she left him alone again when the daycare incident occurred. Now friend refuses to return the money, saying she had previously loaned her money and they agreed to use the 3 hundred towards repayment of the loan. Plaintiff is just a mess. She doesn't work, lives off assistance and needed a babysitter because she was planning to go to Honduras. Even the Honduras trip is suspect - was she going because her dad died or to party with some guy she met online. I didn't like the defendant much, but believed she thought the trip was supposed to be a week, while she planned to be gone a month. Worst part was the hallterview where plaintiff still denied any responsibility, saying all her problems are due to others.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

I think she was going for the "I wanna look 10 - no 20 pounds thinner on tv so I'll wear this jokey dress"

If she had checked herself out from the back, she'd know it didn't work.  10" cake for 34 people? Maybe they were just going to smell it.

Quote

 MM gets a little worked up and gives a lecture about how society is going down the toilet when people try to take advantage of a simple mistake to get out of paying their bill.

But she WAS going to pay it. She TRIED to pay it! Of course she didn't high-five herself with glee on the way home.

Quote

Couple buy a mobile home, and now are suing

They thought "encumbrances" in real estate meant things like rodents or mold. Gah, those two were dumb. He's an electrical contractor, but maybe not a very good or smart one since they have to live in a rundown, decrepit, moldy 15K trailer.

Quote

plaintiff still denied any responsibility, saying all her problems are due to others.

Their actions are never their fault. Yeah, it's someone else's fault that she got knocked up when she already had one kid taken away from her.  Someone else's fault that she's a drunk who doesn't work, so the taxpayers of the US have to support her and her kids. Her little sadsack, whiny, "woe is me" mope act got her less than zero sympathy from JM. I wonder who was paying for Honduras trip? Even when they barely speak the language they've got the system all worked out.

[Jamoche]

Only caught the halterview, but plaintiff apparently sued her landlord because she's "very sensitive". To allergens? No, ghosts! And the defendant didn't tell her there were ghosts! Gosh, honey, if you're that sensitive, how come you didn't notice when you first looked at the place?

[Jamoche]

On August 17, 2016 at 6:32 PM, AZChristian said:

 

• Mama never did "get it" that her case was ridiculous.  Even in the halterview she was complaining that she had spent all that money on a party and that it was totally ruined by the 10-inch cake.

Did I miss anything?

I'd love to see Mama deal with any of the cakes from cakewrecks.com!

[speac]

2 hours ago, Jamoche said:

Only caught the halterview, but plaintiff apparently sued her landlord because she's "very sensitive". To allergens? No, ghosts! And the defendant didn't tell her there were ghosts! Gosh, honey, if you're that sensitive, how come you didn't notice when you first looked at the place?

You probably should have seen the case because the plaintiff wasn't suing because of ghosts, she was suing for her deposit that the landlord was keeping.  One of the things the landlord claimed was that the plaintiff was burying candles that caused smokey smut on the walls and ceiling because of the resident ghost the landlord admitted existed on site and was called Charlie.  Both sides seemed perfectly comfortable with Charlie but couldn't stand each other.

[AngelaHunter]

What sewer did Levin drag to find the first two litigants? Jessica, who lives in a crib in the projects, who thought that the loser, drug dealing, ex-con plaintiff was irresistable, so much so that she followed him to Florida. That's fine for her - follow your dream man -  until we hear she has a child. Neither of them can drive without racking up 1500$ in tickets.  "How ya doin', yer honor?" I always love those opening words.

Lady who wants her security deposit back, despite the fact that she burned the carpet, scratched the floors, broke a drawer front and let her kid draw on the walls: I can picture the screeching fit she threw that actually scared the movers away and she didn't think she should pay for any damage. Landlord was a creep, but plaintiff had no gratitude at getting any of her money back.

[ElleMo]

On 8/23/2016 at 4:59 PM, AngelaHunter said:

What sewer did Levin drag to find the first two litigants? Jessica, who lives in a crib in the projects, who thought that the loser, drug dealing, ex-con plaintiff was irresistable, so much so that she followed him to Florida. That's fine for her - follow your dream man -  until we hear she has a child. Neither of them can drive without racking up 1500$ in tickets.  "How ya doin', yer honor?" I always love those opening words.

Lady who wants her security deposit back, despite the fact that she burned the carpet, scratched the floors, broke a drawer front and let her kid draw on the walls: I can picture the screeching fit she threw that actually scared the movers away and she didn't think she should pay for any damage. Landlord was a creep, but plaintiff had no gratitude at getting any of her money back.

I was impressed that she had insurance on her house that paid her rent. Don't see that much on these shows

[SRTouch]

Looking forward to some new episodes. Today was all about kids, though some were legally adult kids who just need to grow up. First case was a 18yo kid who has a physical fight with foster dad. Seems she wants to sow some wild oats, and he insists she has to follow his rules if she's going to live at home. Now she's in court suing for the fancy phone and laptop he bought her and kept when she moved out. MM let's dad keep the iphone since he's still paying on it, but he has to the computer was a graduate gift, so is her property. Sad case with kid not realizing how much the foster parents have done for her and now they're say they won't help her in the future.

Second case is dad suing because teenage son was hit by defendant while riding a bike. Kid spun a tale for dad about the accident, and dad brought the case to court without checking the facts. Amazing how quickly the kid's story falls apart when MM starts asking questions. Hopefully the kid was stage struck isn't as stupid as he appeared in court. It didn't help their case when a cop just happened to be following the defendant and was a witness. Defendant had all the facts and evidence on her side, and had a good time in court because she knew she was going to win. End result is dad looks silly bringing the case when kid's story changes multiple times in court, and dad never checked the facts.

Third case is another adult child making a fool of herself. (This is the woman with the annoying habit of adding "uh" to words as she's talking... "yes-uh... my house-uh," etc.) Story here is woman has parents living in her house, and wants them out. She goes out and finds an apartment for them, looks at the place with mom and puts down 4 grand. Mom is concerned bedroom might be too small, and dad never looks at the place. Dad doesn't want to move and nixes the deal. Now she's suing for return of the prorated rent for 15 days - she has already gotten back most of the 4 grand - the broker fee and security depostit. MM tells her the law entitles the defendant to keep the prorated rent since she took the place off the market - in fact MM tells plaintiff she really lucked getting back the broker fee because the law would have let the broker keep it.

[Guest]

On ‎8‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 4:59 PM, AngelaHunter said:

"How ya doin', yer honor?" I always love those opening words.

 

I like the frantic "Yonner, Yonner" while they're raising their hand and shifting looks to the other side.   This usually occurs when they are clearly on the losing end and have absolutely no qualms about giving it their all in a last ditch attempt to sway the judge.

Never has worked and by all accounts - never will.

[SRTouch]

Silly rerun cases today that I ended up fast forwarding through for the most part.

first case: brothers feuding over parents' estate. I always find it sad when I hear about people coming together at the death of "loved" ones and acting like scavengers instead of supporting each other. I guess the litigants in this case don't really fit that mold, since they were estranged long before dad died. Still, I found the case depressing, and am glad my brothers and sisters came together instead of imploding when our parents died. I ended up FF'eding through the case after the intro, and when I heard the hallterview wasn't interesting in watching the case.

second case: space cadet suing ex-landlord, claiming promised repairs were never done. Says he pointed out things that needed repair before moving in (of course nothing in writing), got fed up after two months of no repairs being done, and moved out. Dude signed a 1 year lease, but found a replacement tenant when he left. Landlord agreed to let him break the lease and not pay a month of rent he owed, just wanting to be rid of the guy.

sidenote: I used to know a guy who talked and acted just like this plaintiff. Dude came across as a total space cadet, but was actually very intelligent. He had a terrible time communicating verbally, but give him a pen and paper and he came up with incredible stuff (this was early 70s). I found myself wondering if the plaintiff, with his cut and paste evidence and terrible verbal skills, might not just be marching to his own beat.

Actually, this is a case where the litigants have already settled. Landlord forgave the month of no rent and returned some of the deposit, but the plaintiff changes his mind and files suit anyway. Plaintiff loses case, and actually ends up having to return the $500 settlement the landlord paid to be rid of him.

Third case: wishy washy case where no one has evidence. MM ping pongs between litigants trying to drag evidence out of the litigants. I was as confused as MM seemed to be, and gave up and stopped watching. Sometimes when I give up on a case and skip to hallterview I decide to go back and watch, but for the second time today I decide it's not worth the time. 

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

brothers feuding over parents' estate

Every lawyer we've ever seen on this show has been a shady shyster, and this one was no exception. I see why he's no longer practicing. Both of them were repugnant in the extreme.

[speac]

9 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Silly rerun cases today that I ended up fast forwarding through for the most part.

first case: brothers feuding over parents' estate. I always find it sad when I hear about people coming together at the death of "loved" ones and acting like scavengers instead of supporting each other. I guess the litigants in this case don't really fit that mold, since they were estranged long before dad died. Still, I found the case depressing, and am glad my brothers and sisters came together instead of imploding when our parents died. I ended up FF'eding through the case after the intro, and when I heard the hallterview wasn't interesting in watching the case.

second case: space cadet suing ex-landlord, claiming promised repairs were never done. Says he pointed out things that needed repair before moving in (of course nothing in writing), got fed up after two months of no repairs being done, and moved out. Dude signed a 1 year lease, but found a replacement tenant when he left. Landlord agreed to let him break the lease and not pay a month of rent he owed, just wanting to be rid of the guy.

sidenote: I used to know a guy who talked and acted just like this plaintiff. Dude came across as a total space cadet, but was actually very intelligent. He had a terrible time communicating verbally, but give him a pen and paper and he came up with incredible stuff (this was early 70s). I found myself wondering if the plaintiff, with his cut and paste evidence and terrible verbal skills, might not just be marching to his own beat.

Actually, this is a case where the litigants have already settled. Landlord forgave the month of no rent and returned some of the deposit, but the plaintiff changes his mind and files suit anyway. Plaintiff loses case, and actually ends up having to return the $500 settlement the landlord paid to be rid of him.

Third case: wishy washy case where no one has evidence. MM ping pongs between litigants trying to drag evidence out of the litigants. I was as confused as MM seemed to be, and gave up and stopped watching. Sometimes when I give up on a case and skip to hallterview I decide to go back and watch, but for the second time today I decide it's not worth the time. 

I think space cadet had significant hearing loss he was wearing very visible hearing aids and spoke like a few people I know who are nearly deaf.   It doesn't excuse how foolish it was to come to court after signing an agreement not to though.

[Redcookie]

Watching a case on TPC that was on Judge Judy a while back. Daughter who is raising her brothers takes father to court. She says he stole the Christmas presents she got for the boys, months before Christmas, that included air Jordan's. Judy had the brothers out of court. Told one to come back and he said they all got air Jordan's for Christmas. the case was sad cause dad was a dirt bag. I don't think Judy awarded her any money. I know she didn't for the gifts. Can't remember about rent.

And here they are on TPC minus the brothers. Sister has glammed herself up. She had a voicemail message on JJ. Not with this version. But MM is giving her what she wants except pain and suffering. Wow.

I am curious if producers don't check other shows for dups, as I know this isn't the first time this has happened. 

[ElleMo]

38 minutes ago, Redcookie said:

Watching a case on TPC that was on Judge Judy a while back. Daughter who is raising her brothers takes father to court. She says he stole the Christmas presents she got for the boys, months before Christmas, that included air Jordan's. Judy had the brothers out of court. Told one to come back and he said they all got air Jordan's for Christmas. the case was sad cause dad was a dirt bag. I don't think Judy awarded her any money. I know she didn't for the gifts. Can't remember about rent.

And here they are on TPC minus the brothers. Sister has glammed herself up. She had a voicemail message on JJ. Not with this version. But MM is giving her what she wants except pain and suffering. Wow.

I am curious if producers don't check other shows for dups, as I know this isn't the first time this has happened. 

I saw both also.  At first, I was very confused as to why JJ didn't give her anything and was really angry at both girl and dad.  Then I realized it's fraud. If Dad pays rent, it shouldn't be to the daughter;  it should be the welfare or dept. of social services office.  If she gets anything from the dad, she is required to turn it over. Whether she was in on it from the beginning - dad tells daughter to tell welfare office he is not around so they can all live off welfare - or they way she said - dad comes looking for a place to stay after boys were in her care for a while  -- I don't know but JJ didn't care.  The entire thing just pissed her off.  

MM, on the other hand, didn't work family court in NY so she didn't have years of dealing with scammers, and she had more empathy for girl.  I did feel for her but I hope she was not knowingly trying to scam the gov't because that is never a good sign.  I don't want her career to be scamming the gov't.

But it doesn't bode well that she came on the second show much better prepared and got more money for the same thing.  So instead (or in addition to??) scamming the gov't, she is scamming the court shows.

Edited August 31, 2016 by ElleMo

[DebbieW]

I haven't seen this case on PC yet (I have a ton of episodes on the DVR to catch up on), but I remember it from JJ.  I was pretty indifferent about the daughter.  Her story didn't seem to add up and it just seemed off.  The father was such a dirtbag, however, I end up hoping that JJ would give her everything she asked for.  He really pissed me off in the hallterview when he said something to the effect of "sometimes you gotta remind 'em who's in charge" as if he had won the case and the daughter had been taught a lesson about respect, when in fact the case had simply been dismissed.  I found myself wishing that he'd end up being run down by a fast moving bus as he exited the studio. 

[ElleMo]

1 hour ago, DebbieW said:

I haven't seen this case on PC yet (I have a ton of episodes on the DVR to catch up on), but I remember it from JJ.  I was pretty indifferent about the daughter.  Her story didn't seem to add up and it just seemed off.  The father was such a dirtbag, however, I end up hoping that JJ would give her everything she asked for.  He really pissed me off in the hallterview when he said something to the effect of "sometimes you gotta remind 'em who's in charge" as if he had won the case and the daughter had been taught a lesson about respect, when in fact the case had simply been dismissed.  I found myself wishing that he'd end up being run down by a fast moving bus as he exited the studio. 

She was much more sympathetic on PC.  She learned from her experience at JJ.  She did not bring the boys to court either.

[AZChristian]

Check The Peoples Court on Facebook.  Folks have posted about this case, and the sweet sister is using some pretty colorful language and claiming that the shows are all fake and she only met her "brothers" the day before filming.

I would believe that for some court shows, but not TPC and JJ.  I think they're real, but THEY got scammed on this one.  JJ caught on, but MM did not.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

She did not bring the boys to court either.

Did she appear on JJ first? If so, I see why she didn't bring them to MM, who got scammed by her. I know JJ outed her, revealing her lies when she made the boys wait outside then brought them in and asked what they got for Christmas. Expensive running shoes! Ooops.

I adore JM, but sometimes she gets blinded by her "all families have to love and care for each other" mindset.

Edited September 1, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[silverspoons]

On ‎8‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 0:21 PM, Rick Kitchen said:

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.

It looks like he is replacing Curt on the previews and it was posted on the facebook today he is coming back to hallway reporting. I'm happy to see him back. I remember watching him on the show when I was a kid and now my kids watch the show.

[ElleMo]

14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Did she appear on JJ first? If so, I see why she didn't bring them to MM, who got scammed by her. I know JJ outed her, revealing her lies when she made the boys wait outside then brought them in and asked what they got for Christmas. Expensive running shoes! Ooops.

I adore JM, but sometimes she gets blinded by her "all families have to love and care for each other" mindset.

I think so. JJ definately aired first.  And it makes sense because it does seem like she changed her behavior and the story a lit bit  and kept the boys at home because of the results of JJ.  

 

15 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Check The Peoples Court on Facebook.  Folks have posted about this case, and the sweet sister is using some pretty colorful language and claiming that the shows are all fake and she only met her "brothers" the day before filming.

I would believe that for some court shows, but not TPC and JJ.  I think they're real, but THEY got scammed on this one.  JJ caught on, but MM did not.

I agree.  And if the shows were making up the cases, they certainly wouldn't have the same cases with the same actors.  I do believe that they coach the litigants to make the stories more interesting.  (e.g. make sure you mention that he has 10 kids)

Edited September 1, 2016 by ElleMo
'cause my typing and proofreading skills are terrible

[SRTouch]

35 minutes ago, ElleMo said:

I think so. JJ definately aired first.  And it makes sense because it does seem like she changed her behavior and the story a lit bit  and kept the boys at home because of the results of JJ.  (e.g. make sure you mention that he has 10 kids)

 

I agree.  And if the shows were making up the cases, they certainly wouldn't have the same cases with the same actors.  I do believe that they coach the litigants to make the stories more interesting.

Then there's the fact that JJ films in LA and TPC films in Connecticut. 

[Guest]

I think she changed her look, too. 

I didn't recognize her at first but knew the story from JJ.

Did Daddy "Appleseed" mention he has ten kids?  I didn't hear that part.

[ElleMo]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

I think she changed her look, too. 

I didn't recognize her at first but knew the story from JJ.

Did Daddy "Appleseed" mention he has ten kids?  I didn't hear that part.

I don't recall if he mentioned it on PC.  It do remember it was mentioned on JJ.

[OhioSongbird]

He didn't....unfortunately.  I was waiting for JM's reaction.

[Jamoche]

On August 26, 2016 at 7:15 PM, speac said:

I think space cadet had significant hearing loss he was wearing very visible hearing aids and spoke like a few people I know who are nearly deaf.   It doesn't excuse how foolish it was to come to court after signing an agreement not to though.

IIRC from back when it first ran, he had some "friends" who convinced him that he could've gotten more money if he'd sued.

[AngelaHunter]

Soap Bubble Boy: "We met when we was in college."  No, there is no hope.

I enjoyed the repeat of the model who has never modelled (but could make 2500$ if she DID model and who has not a single picture of herself anywhere) and her yappy, hyper, tiny little "It's a crime. It's a crime! It's a crime!" husband.