The People's Court - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, momtoall said:

Yes angelahunter, these litigants did speak "proper" English but some of them were sneakier/slimmer than the litigants who speak "improperly".  That "oh-so-sorry" teen was full of it, the furniture guy was an ass, the bad wig lady was a total user.  Good grammar or not they were no different than what we usually see on TPC.  Just a little easier on the ears.  LOL

Exactly. I mentioned the little pig furniture guy, but the thing is, he and full-of-(sh)it-teenager ARE no different than any scamming, smarmy creeps we see here, but at least I didn't have to grit my teeth AND be outraged at their behavior. I had only their bad behavior to contend with, and to me, yes - that is a good day! I never intimated they were any better than any other lying liar we see here.

[teebax]

I'm late to the discussion about Thursday's car crash case. I am so excited that we are starting to see video evidence of these car accidents, whether it's from dash cams or from street cameras. It almost makes living in this Orwellian time worthwhile. It is astounding to me that people will STILL ignore their own video evidence and insist they're in the right.

This jackass thinks his turn signal creates a force field around his car, so anyone in another lane can't possibly hit him if he signals. I see this all the time where I live. People put their blinker on and just swerve into the next line, as if the blinker gives them the right of way. These are more idiots I've decided to just let hit me, like the morons backing out of parking spaces without checking for traffic.

I'm going to get on TPC one way or another, y'all!

[Katy M]

3 minutes ago, teebax said:

I'm late to the discussion about Thursday's car crash case. I am so excited that we are starting to see video evidence of these car accidents, whether it's from dash cams or from street cameras. It almost makes living in this Orwellian time worthwhile. It is astounding to me that people will STILL ignore their own video evidence and insist they're in the right.

This jackass thinks his turn signal creates a force field around his car, so anyone in another lane can't possibly hit him if he signals. I see this all the time where I live. People put their blinker on and just swerve into the next line, as if the blinker gives them the right of way. These are more idiots I've decided to just let hit me, like the morons backing out of parking spaces without checking for traffic.

I'm going to get on TPC one way or another, y'all!

And, if anyone finds out your online identity, you've lost your case.  Because you do have a duty to avoid an accident.  So, you'll end up with a little rough justice, assigning you 25% of the blame.  Except it's "premeditated non-avoidance" so you get 75%. 

[SRTouch]

1. all in the family: plaintiff suing son's longtime gf and the mother of her grandchild for over $4500. Apparently, plaintiff and her hubby had two adult sons living with them, in addition to sons' gfs, plus grandkids from son's previous relationships, etc etc, not sure who all. Guess the sons live rent free, but when this gf moved in with another grandkids granny decided to charge her rent. According to this gf, the defendant, when she moved in she agreed to pay $300, but rent kept going up and up until, after 2 years, granny was demanding $500. Oh, and that isn't all granny is suing for - no she also wants money for babysitting the grandkid, plus money she spent throwing a party.  Remember, the 29yo son, defendant's bf and father of her child, lives there rent free (supposedly, he is renovating the house in lieu of rent) - plaintiff says other adult son and his gf paid a combined rent of $50 less than defendant... plaintiff explains defendant was charged an extra $50 because of the child... is that the grandchild or does she have other kids? And why is bf living rent free? Oh, and how much support is he paying defendant for THEIR child? Anyway, defendant was paying the steadily increasing rent right up til she loses her job and changes to a low paying job. Instead of giving the mother of her grandchild a break, granny keeps right on raising the rent... oh, and is seeking an extra month of rent because she didn't receive notice defendant was moving. Ah, here's the real reason for the case. Defendant and bf had a fight and she moved out, taking the 2yo grandchild/son. Granny and no-rent bf/father of 2yo went and filed for custody. Defendant and rent-free daddy make up, move into a new place. Everybody agrees defendant owes granny some rent in their confused/unfair rental agreement... oh, and defendant admits granny charged to babysit her son, AKA the grandkid, but doesn't know what much she owes in babysitting. Problem is, defendant doesn't even know how much she was supposed to pay or when. To top it all off, even after granny filed this case they still all got together for Easter SUNDAY DINNER - ah but they hadn't been served yet. Defendant isn't putting up much of a defense - she admits to owing, just isn't sure how much... not good when the other side is saying they DO know how much is owed. Plaintiff doesn't get the extra month for not getting notice, but gets over 4 grand. When MM rules, she tells granny she hopes she enjoys the money, as it probably will end up costing her any chance of a relationship with her grandson. Hmmm, the hallterview raises a couple questions and maybe hints at answers to others. Rent free dad/son has shared custody of his older son, and from hallterview I wonder if, as part of the shared custody agreement in his divorce he was required to live with granny. That may explain why granny let him stay rent free... she may have favored the ex wife and first grandchild over defendant and the younger child.... aw what a mess!
2. Bad wedding photographer: bride hired long time acquaintance to photograph the wedding and put together a book of the pictures two years ago, and now wants money back. Ok, normally I'd think overly picky bride, but boy is this dude irritating. Thing here is that they were doing this long distance, he's in NY with the pictures and she's in South Carolina - oh and she's only marginally computer literate. So, he sets up a site for her to view the 500 odd pix to decide what to put in the book, but all she can see are thumbnails on her phone. Then he tries breaking the puctures into 70 pic blocks and emailing them... way too complicated for this lady, and I guess she doesn't know anyone who can help her. Lots of back and forth trying to get something she can see. Ok, already said I find this guy irritating, but really, can she really not find someone who would help her view these pics? Finally she claims he cut her out of the selection process and puts together an album. Of course she has problems with the final product - and she's becoming as irritating as he is with talking over MM and answering questions before she finishing asking them. Ah, unique solution, MM says call her Monte Hall and she'll play Let's Make a Deal. Photographer still has the pictures, so she comes up with the idea that they'll put up the litigants in a conference room, let her make her choices, and she'll get a new wedding album. Ah, sounds good, but no these folks want MONEY, and put the kibosh on that idea. MM tells them no way are they getting what they're asking. More arguments trying to convince MM to give them money... she's really beginning to irritate the judge and will end up with nothing if she doesn't zip it. Final judgement - she gets all the pictures and $275 cash so she can choose the pix she wants and make her own version (I bet the new version is never done and his version becomes acceptable once they get home).
3. used car kerfuffle: not your normal used car case... dude bought the car knowing it was mid-restoration, and his complaint is that some of the work that had already been done in the restoration was sub par or not even done at all. Soooo, dude was friends with defendant's brother, guy who had been working on the car for a couple years. Then that brother "went away" (to the big house) and car came back to defendant, who says he was actually the owner all along. Now, defendant wasn't interested in completing the work, so he puts it up for sale as a non running project car... $6500 or best offer. Plaintiff buys it for 4 grand, then discovers that jailbird bro didn't do such a great job repairing what he repaired. In an ironic twist, jailbird bro was released early, and was the "mechanic" plaintiff turned to to inspect the car before buying it. Yep, jailbird is supposed to inspect his own work. Surprise, jailbird gives it a thumbs-up, and guy buys it. Then he takes it to a real auto shop, and they find all KINDS of problems.... well, MM says, let's check the bill of sale for a warranty.... hmmm, AS IS sale. Hoboy, so guess what plaintiff does when he gets the car... he tows it to Pennsylvania to some ace mechanic who specializes in rebuilding these old cars... ace says it's junk... dude signs over title to ace because it'd cost $500 to tow his $4000 car home to NJ... soooo, asks MM, how do you know ace junked it instead of keeping it for himself? Cuz he told me he was going to junk it... yep, can't do anything with that kind of stupid. So sorry, "as is" means no freeking warranty.

Edited October 3, 2017 by SRTouch

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

all in the family:

Defendant came across as a doormat who sheepishly accepts people repeatedly wiping their dirty shoes all over her; no wonder greedy grandma was able to claim all sorts of things with no counter-evidence from her. She was ready to accept any amount claimed against her because she's no good at keeping records? That's akin to a sheep so resigned to be shorn that it provides the scissors.

As for her husband, he hides below the doormat, even under the porch floor, instead of standing up to his mother. Plaintiff seemed arbitrary in deciding who pays what for rent (or not), and probably prefers the ex-wife as SRTouch proposes; she even charges for babysitting her grandkid. I would understand getting expenses reimbursed but unless she was losing income for not being able to work at a job, this seems a bit extreme.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Bad wedding photographer:

What is it with some brides and their wedding photos, music, reception, clothes, etc.? My theory is that they have bought into the idea of the perfect fairy-tale wedding that popular culture keeps pushing, so that when reality falls short of that ideal, as it inevitably will, they turn into irrational monsters (and are probably cheapskates to begin with). Although her husband seemed as eager as she was to get the money back, despite the fact that photographer provided them with material that appeared acceptable and that he could have made adjustments to if she wasn't so computer-challenged that she was not able to view said material correctly.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

used car kerfuffle:

Naive plaintiff who appears ready to trust anybody's word whatever the circumstances got a well-deserved lesson in the reality of car-buying. Sad for him, but unsurprising outcome.

Edited October 2, 2017 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

30 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Defendant came across as a doormat who sheepishly accepts people repeatedly wiping their dirty shoes all over her;

Yeah, well, look at her choice of boyfriend - a ball-less tiny little Muppet who can't stand up to Mommy when he's 29(!!) years old. But that's who def picked to breed with. Really, should people be having babies when they can't even afford the most modest place to live? Def. chose to live with boyfriend's mommy and abide by whatever arbitrary rules she laid down. Another woman who will do anything to keep a worthless little twerp, as long as he has a pulse. You can't expect Mommy to make her baby boy pay for anything, not even the food he shovels down his gullet,  so his stupid stupid girlfriend ponied up the dough. I"m sure boyfriend is worth it! That doesn't change the fact that Mommy is a total savage witch, who charges to care for her own grandchild and who has raised two loser boys who can't cut the apron strings. She even took her boy to court to sue for custody of the unfortunate child. Yuck.  Congrats on a job well done, Mom! You got your money. As JM said, I hope she enjoys it.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Bad wedding photographer:

So what this woman wants is the whole photography job for free. Her attitude changed and got really ugly when JM informed her that was NOT happening, but that she will get her pictures. I can see why the new hubby remained mute - probably scared to open his trap. Plaintiff is not happy because she's not sure that pics she hasn't even seen are to her liking. Yeah, she just wants money. However, flashily dressed def looked really bad, putting multiple copies of the same pictures in the album. "It was a mistake," he says in the hall. Okay.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

used car kerfuffle: not your normal used car case

If plaintiff took as much time figuring out his purchases as he took styling his hair, he'd be in good shape. A 20-year old Mitsubishi, that he knows is not running yet spends 4K on, is  a piece of junk? Another "As is" waste of time. The only entertaining part was def., talking about his brother being "away." We who watch court shows know what "out of town", "not around" or "away" mean. It's always code for "In the slammer." Of course he was in jail. That's a normal part of living for so many litigants. Anyway, that's what happened with plaintiff's new best friend. He got scammed - more than once it seems -  but can't blame anyone else for this. Live and learn!

 

OH, oh! Have to comment on this:

Quote

It is astounding to me that people will STILL ignore their own video evidence and insist they're in the right.

Another grown man who can't drive without crashing the car,  standing there, in the face of indisputable video evidence, stubbornly insisting like a 5-year old, "Wasn't me. I didn't do it." Amazing. Terribly sad, but amazing.

Edited October 2, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[Jamoche]

I am so non-visually-oriented that I'd pay extra for the photographer to just make an album for me. I'm not going to look at them, now or years from now. I'd just send them to the photo-loving members of my family. I suspect the "same pictures" didn't register to the photographer because they're actually consecutive shots and - not having any real stake in them - he didn't catch it when he just grabbed a dozen or so out of those 500 to get her off his back. 

 

 

Money-grubbing grandma is going to be quite happy with her money. Who needs an actual grandchild around when you've got a "woe is me, my child is an ungrateful wretch" sympathy card to play?

[teebax]

4 hours ago, Katy M said:

And, if anyone finds out your online identity, you've lost your case.  Because you do have a duty to avoid an accident.  So, you'll end up with a little rough justice, assigning you 25% of the blame.  Except it's "premeditated non-avoidance" so you get 75%. 

Wrong.

[Katy M]

23 minutes ago, teebax said:

Wrong.

WEll, I don't know about anywhere else, but on PP, I've heard JM talk about duty to avoid several times, and that's where you said you wanted to go.

And this was on an claims adjustor website:

 

Quote

Thus, while the motorist has a right to rely on the care which should be exercised by others, he is not excused from his own duty of care.  When it becomes apparaent that there will be a failure on the part of the other motorist to comply with the statutory regulations or the rules of the road, he must take action and adopt means available to avoid an accident.  He is negligent if he fails to do so.  The fact that the other mototist was also negligent will not exoneragte hime from responsibility insofar as the claims of third persons are concerned.

[Jamoche]

Whoops, wrong court show. Over to JJ...

Edited October 2, 2017 by Jamoche

[AngelaHunter]

10 minutes ago, Jamoche said:

Whoops, wrong court show. Over to JJ...

What, you got your disreputable low-life scamming cretins mixed up? Don't worry. I've done it too! lol....

[AngelaHunter]

I see Levin the Shyster got ticketed for texting and driving, something he whines that no one should do. I guess he means that other people shouldn't do it, but it's okay for some Very Important like he is.

Lots of love for him in the comments.

http://www.tmz.com/2010/09/05/harvey-levin-lapd-ticket-texting-driving/

[teebax]

1 hour ago, Katy M said:

WEll, I don't know about anywhere else, but on PP, I've heard JM talk about duty to avoid several times, and that's where you said you wanted to go.

And this was on an claims adjustor website:

 

Not the forum for this argument but you're incorrect. I spent half my life in insurance and there's no law that says you're 25 percent negligent if some moron backs into you or swerves into you. 

It's this mentality that leads people to drive as if they're the only people on the road. I wish people would stop spreading misinformation. I don't have a duty to slam on my brakes because someone is stupid enough to back out into me.

That's why both litigants lost their cases on TPC.

[Brattinella]

8 hours ago, Katy M said:

And, if anyone finds out your online identity, you've lost your case.  Because you do have a duty to avoid an accident.  So, you'll end up with a little rough justice, assigning you 25% of the blame.  Except it's "premeditated non-avoidance" so you get 75%. 

Really?  Do tell, do you have a link to this info?

[Katy M]

I was making up the percentages. But, you do have a duty to avoid an accident.  I think not slamming on your brakes because you want to make a point is a good example of driving as if you're the only person on the road.

[Katy M]

On appeal, the California Court of Appeal stated that as a general rule, people have a duty to avoid injuring others and can be held liable when their conduct does cause harm to others.  https://www.southerncaliforniainjurylawyer.net/2016/06/california-court-appeal-finds-riding-skateboard-downhill-thrills-prevents-recovery-injuries-fatality-resulting-fall/

 

It is very critical to answer every question very carefully. For example, if the adjuster asks “What did you do when you saw the other car?” And you answer, “Nothing, I did not have time to react.” This answer could place a huge breach on you! You have a duty to avoid an accident, and you breached that duty by saying that you did nothing to avoid it.

http://www.auto-insurance-claim-advice.com/Driver-Breach.html

[teebax]

1 hour ago, Katy M said:

I was making up the percentages. 

Of course you were.

[AngelaHunter]

http://www.auto-insurance-claim-advice.com/Driver-Breach.html

Oh, dear. You'd think someone writing an article regarding insurance claims for automobile accidents might know how to spell "brakes." It's written as "breaks" and "breaking" every single time.

[Brattinella]

6 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

http://www.auto-insurance-claim-advice.com/Driver-Breach.html

Oh, dear. You'd think someone writing an article regarding insurance claims for automobile accidents might know how to spell "brakes." It's written as "breaks" and "breaking" every single time.

Hee!

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

http://www.auto-insurance-claim-advice.com/Driver-Breach.html

Oh, dear. You'd think someone writing an article regarding insurance claims for automobile accidents might know how to spell "brakes." It's written as "breaks" and "breaking" every single time.

Lol... I imagine another case of autocorrect and poor proofreading... happens to me quite often

[DoctorK]

Today's first case, the twerking (not tweaking, thanks Jamoche) model. Am I the only one who finds it hard to believe that she has 13 thousand followers? All she seems to have to attract followers is the combination of bad teeth (all lower fronts gone, uppers in place but look pretty bad), stringy raggedy ass hair, and less than dazzling conversational skill. Oh well, everybody has their own taste.

Edited October 3, 2017 by DoctorK
tweak and twerk are not interchangeable

[SRTouch]

1. silly case: wanna be entrepreneur hired little lady to post pictures of herself on social media using/wearing his "products". His claim is she only posted a couple pictures, so he's suing for $300 - the money he paid her, the products he sent her to use - oh, and for his wasted time. Not to be outdone, defendant has a countersuit for harrassment - be interesting to hear how she came up with her $1700 in damages. Not liking either side as they come in,  plaintiff has an arm swinging swagger that makes me think of a gang member in a cheesy musical, while little bitty defendant comes in and spends the whole intro looking over to her left instead of facing the camera, and when she finally talks she acts like a little girl (I mean, really, when MM asks who Miss Honey Goddess is, defendant raises her hand, jacket too big so her tiny stature is emphasized with her hand barely sticking out of the sleeve, and cutesy little girl act spoiled when she talks and we see all the gaps in her teeth.) Plaintiff says he paid defendant to promote his product... Wonder who should get paid as he comes in and sets out cans of his energy drink and hold it up to show America (dude, when you hold up the can turn it so people can see the label!) He says they had a contract... ah, couple hitches with the contract - first instead of defendant's name the contract has her nickname (Miss Honey Goddess) - second, the printed "contract " seems to have skipped signature blocks, oh, and VERY vague in what she was supposed to do to earn her modeling fees. Anyway, forget the "contract" both sides agree defendant was paid a hundred bucks to promote the product on social media for three months. Apparently, little Honey Goddess has quite the following on Instagram where she twerks for her many followers. Sooo, plaintiff found her twerking pix, and thought it'd be fantastic if she would wear a t-shirt with his energy drink logo while she did her thing. Ok, he admits she posted some pix of her with his drink and flyer - but no twerking and not wearing his very expensive 15 dollar t-shirt. So, if she does a monthly twerk for 3 months while wearing his logo is that enough to meet their verbal agreement? She says $100 only buys her still picture, it costs more if you want her to actually twerk while wearing your shirt. So, he thinks he paid for a twerk video, and she says no, $100 only buys pictures. His case is dead in the water, so we go to the countersuit. By now I'm no longer interested enough to watch how the "harrassment" claim amounts to $1700, but thankfully time is running out. Apparently, the pix of her holding his flyer between her legs got him excited, and she says he started sending her inappropriate texts (Yep, pretty inappropriate judging by what is read - and beeped out - in court.) Anyway, both sides are getting the showcase they want by appearing on TPC for this frivolous case - Honey Goddess gets a plug for her twerking site - apparently she makes her living endorsing stuff on her site. (Not sure how good a living it earns her, as she says something about this being her first product endorsement.)
2. dog park attack: skipped - not in the mood... especially when we hear defendant saying in the intro how friendly his pitty is, and "these things happen." Geez, should have hit FF instead of just going in the other room as I heard way to much irresponsible dog owner stupidity.
3. real estate broker fail: plaintiff says she rented an apartment through a broker, but when she went to move in the place was unavailable. Defendant says she was the one not ready to move in. Says when landlord was told she would taken the apartment but wasn't in a hurry to move in, he took the apartment off the market and did some renovations. Says when the reno work was complete and place ready, she backed out and demanded a refund of the brokers commission (she also wants landlord to return first, last and security that she paid).  Plaintiff's story is she saw the apartment in February and paid first month rent and security, plus broker fee, with a move in date of March 15. When she sees the place, landlord promises to remove the carpet and refinish the floors, oh and paint the place with the paint plaintiff supplied. She heads off to the carribean to get away for 10 days of snowfree beach time.  March 14 comes - place isn't ready... heck carpet still not removed nor has place been painted, and landlord says he didn't figure she would move in on the 15th because of the snow. So, she backs out and demands her money back... and she says she has texts from landlord and broker that she'll get refunds.... but not a penny is actually returned. Today she's suing for the broker fee, and she has a case pending against the landlord. Ok, sure sounds like a good case... and when defendant starts talking I take an instant dislike. First, what is with the head phone and ear piece he's wearing? I'm guessing a Bluetooth device, definitely not something he should be wearing in court. After she made a very clear case for why she should get a refund, he opens with "She signed a year lease...." dude, we know she signed the lease (and paid up front), how 'bout addressing her complaint that you and landlord breached the lease when place wasn't ready on the move in date. MM drags him to the important part, and dude claims place was ready for move in on the 15th... huh, did Samantha Steven's twitch her nose or a Sorcerer (mine favorite Sorcerer is Mickey Mouse) wave his magic wand to get the floors done and the place painted overnight. Hoboy, now things get good! As we go to commercial MM is asking to see dude's broker license. Seems she thought things were fishy, so she and/or her staff checked the public records and couldn't find dude listed as a broker. Repeated questioning, are you a broker?...are you a licensed broker?... then, are...you...a...licensed...broker? Finally, if you listen really closely, he says he's a licensed real estate agent working under a broker... not sure what that means as I'm not up on real estate stuff. MM moves on to demolishing him with other stuff. We don't even need the old stand-by of MM reading the texts plaintiff says she has of dude promising a refund - that comes later. Nooooo... dude kills his claim that place was ready to move in with a video he says was taken on the 15th. Not that he had much chance anyway, but his video shows half ripped up carpeting, paint cans sitting in various rooms, etc... dude must not be a regular viewer, cuz we all know MM is going to watch the video (well, she did shut off Honey Goddess shaking her booty). Ah, we may not be getting the full reading of the texts, but we do get MM asking about a texts he sent days after she backed out where he is "working on" getting her refund to her. Poor guy is speechless... and he started out so smug and confident, now he'd be reaching for the water if this were JJ. He gets out to Doug, and starts off with "ahhhhhhh......" he tries to tell Doug the place was ready, and Doug shoots him down with "not according to the pictures the judge had." and I add "pictures and video that YOU gave her, dummy!"

[patty1h]

Today is another day that I'm happy to be a woman, cause if I were a man, I would wonder how I could look myself in the mirror after leering at this chick twerking.  Pedophile much?  And that skeevy defendant is garbage.  I need a shower. 

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Today's first case, the tweaking model. Am I the only one who finds it hard to believe that she has 13 thousand followers? All she seems to have to attract followers is the combination of bad teeth (all lower fronts gone, uppers in place but look pretty bad), stringy raggedy ass hair, and less than dazzling conversational skill. Oh well, everybody has their own taste.

Total freak show that started with smarmy plaintiff's, "Hiyahonor. How ya doin'?" Litigants? Don't do that. It makes you sound like fools. I couldn't understand too much of what he was saying, except when he had to get the last word in as JM was informing him that an unsigned (and no doubt illiterate) paper does not a contract make. "That was the greement." Saying it ten times does not make it so.  Def? Omg. The worst part is that I do believe she has 13K followers, as the mentality and IQ of the general population drops with each passing day. Watching a "model" (model? Bwahahha!) twerking with her semi-bared buttocks up close and personal, shoving some product between her legs, and watching her talking with all those missing teeth left me dazed and confused and asking, "WTF is going on here?" I'm having a hard time with her taking such maidenly offense at vulgar comments from the scumbag plaintiff. If I were scantily dressed and shaking my booty for online consumption, one would assume I'm looking for overtly sexual reactions from male viewers and probably even dick pics, since I wouldn't expect that display to result in odes to my beauty and grace. I repeat: Freak show on all counts.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

dog park attack: skipped

x 2

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

real estate broker fail:

Wow. That was amazing, but the best part is that stupid def provided the video that proved beyond a doubt that he's a liar. JM gives him every opportunity to tell her what happened and he peters out to sighing and sweating. I think it's a real shame that plaintiff has to go through all this annoyance, harassment and time wasted with TWO court cases just because other people are slack-jawed liars and maybe even scammers. This is one case where I truly think the plaintiff should be entitled to punitive damages. It's just not right what those two put her through.

[Jamoche]

5 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Today's first case, the tweaking model. 

She claims she "twerks", but from the way her eyes don't stop moving, I suspect you're closer to the truth.

Also I totally believe the number of followers, and I believe her when she says she didn't pay for them. I also totally believe 99% of them are bots. Post on a regular basis and up they'll pop, trying to look legit by "following" lots of people.

ETA: OK, I have looked her up on Twitter (in a private browser window!) and I think I know how she makes money - her tweets are pitching products like whoa. Idiots with $100 and t-shirts must be very common. Also you never see her teeth.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Jamoche

[shksabelle]

That toothless troll is a MODEL????

The only thing she would influence me to do is run to my dentist screaming "Don't let this happen to me. "

The concept of shame has disappeared from our society. 

Oh and the plaintiff was a scuzzbucket

Edited October 3, 2017 by shksabelle
Because, as JJ would say, "I am an equal opportunity abuser."

[babs j.]

I will not watch any dog cases.  I either completely mute the sound and read or do a crossword or switch over to any other channel.  I know each case usually takes 20 minutes including commercials so I know when to go back - and if a dog case is the last one I can just turn off the television.

[AngelaHunter]

3 minutes ago, babs j. said:

I will not watch any dog cases.

As soon as I hear "vet bills" I FF. I can't stand hearing about any animals suffering in any way because they are owned by morons and dimwits who shouldn't be allowed custody of a geranium. It's not good for my health.

 

6 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Today's first case, the twerking (not tweaking, thanks Jamoche) model.

Yes, but as Jamoche says, you may have been right the first time.

[Florinaldo]

A bloody "influencer"! And not even a very classy one at that (not that the plaintiff was really better).

There is some discussion in the PR/marketing field as to whether those people are really influencing in a significant way. Some swear by them, others remain unconvinced. I say it's only a minority that has enough impact on a potential customer base to make the investment worth it. Most of them are self-designated as alleged influencers anyway, which limits their collective credibility and as Jamoche says, their reported following may be an inflated portrait of reality. I know that whoever her real flesh-and-blood followers are, I would cringe if I ever were expected to meet any of them considering the oh-so-refined good taste they demonstrate in their openness to being influenced by that.

The dog case was the usual: "my pet is a sweetheart who plays with children and never bites, he must have been provoked and the emotional trauma sent him into a dissociative state for which I cannot be held responsible". The plaintiff was partly to blame for taking his smaller dog to the bigger dogs section of the park.

Usually a broker is just an intermediary who gets the renter and potential landlord together; they are not involved in the contracting between the two parties. I missed part of the case but it seemed that this guy's involvement was deeper than that and that he may have made specific representations to the plaintiff. At least that is the only reason I see why JM would be justified in finding against him instead of telling her that he provided the service she paid for and what happened afterwards is strictly between her and the landlord.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Florinaldo

[aemom]

I'm really behind, but at least I will have something to watch when the repeats kick in.

I just watched the episode with the dog-bite-bonanza, the accident from the car backing out, and the My-Little-Pony haired plaintiff and boyfriend trying to get their security back.

I cannot believe that how much the plaintiff was trying to blame on the dog bite.  I haven't seen such a blatant rip-off attempt since the skin-tag woman sued because the threading lady took off her "beauty mark."  He already got more than enough from the defendant's insurance.

The defendant who backed out his car (who clearly went to the Donald Trump/George Hamilton tanning salon prior to his TV appearance), was so clueless as to what he'd done and the video just sealed the deal.  $1200 is very reasonable for body work, he's lucky that he got off that easy.

Sometimes you make a pre-judgement of someone by their appearance and then they surprise you, for better or for worse (the old don't judge a book by it's cover.)  However the rainbow-haired plaintiff who looked like a 10 year-old really did appear to be as smart and mature as that.  Clearly just signs everything in front of her without reading it first.  She and the boyfriend cannot paint for beans.  I truly shudder to think how she is raising her son since she barely seems capable of raising herself.

[califred]

As someone who watches YouTube videos (not about twerking or tweaking) I'm sort of shocked he paid someone with only 13k followers.  That's not actually a ton for YouTube.   

 

I think i shut off the dog case midway.   Still need to watch the last one/

[AngelaHunter]

What I notice and love is the way JM puts people down in a way they can't complain about. She states the bare facts but puts emphasis in a certain way that makes it sound like an insult, but isn't. For the Tiny Tooth-Deficient Twerker: "Oh, there you are with the product stuck between your legs." Subtle facial expressions of distaste complete the putdown, but litigants are left silent or forced to agree with what said, although they're in a "Wait... what??" mode, unable to decide if they've been insulted or not. It's great.

[AZChristian]

23 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

What I notice and love is the way JM puts people down in a way they can't complain about. She states the bare facts but puts emphasis in a certain way that makes it sound like an insult, but isn't. For the Tiny Tooth-Deficient Twerker: "Oh, there you are with the product stuck between your legs." Subtle facial expressions of distaste complete the putdown, but litigants are left silent or forced to agree with what said, although they're in a "Wait... what??" mode, unable to decide if they've been insulted or not. It's great.

And she followed the "between your legs" comment with, "Your mother must be so proud."  

I got the distinct impression that the twerker was a dwarf - very short, odd mouth/jaw formation and a butt that was out of proportion to the rest of her body.  And the missing lower teeth were really noticeable.  

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

And she followed the "between your legs" comment with, "Your mother must be so proud."  

I got the distinct impression that the twerker was a dwarf - very short, odd mouth/jaw formation and a butt that was out of proportion to the rest of her body.  And the missing lower teeth were really noticeable.  

Possibly, and I noticed her fingers, when she was holding the texts, were quite stubby.

20 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Says when the reno work was complete and place ready, she backed out and demanded a refund of the brokers commission (she also wants landlord to return first, last and security that she paid). 

I think having to go through a broker to find an apartment is ridiculous, but really, if the apartment is not ready on move-in day, it's really on the landlord.  The agent did his job bringing them together.  He should go after the landlord for screwing up the deal.

[Jamoche]

10 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Possibly, and I noticed her fingers, when she was holding the texts, were quite stubby.

I think having to go through a broker to find an apartment is ridiculous, but really, if the apartment is not ready on move-in day, it's really on the landlord.  The agent did his job bringing them together.  He should go after the landlord for screwing up the deal.

I've got an online friend in Chicago who swears by them because just narrowing it down to a handful of options in a big city can be a full-time effort - the market is always changing and you need someone familiar enough with all the locations to read between the lines. Which one of those "convenient to transportation" really means "sits right next to the El"? Which place looks nice, but you'll be showing up here to get any maintenance done?

[califred]

The fact they anyone thought ripped up carpet in the middle of the floor and paint cans everywhere equals move in ready is ridiculous.  He should sue the landlord. 

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, Jamoche said:

I've got an online friend in Chicago who swears by them because just narrowing it down to a handful of options in a big city can be a full-time effort - the market is always changing and you need someone familiar enough with all the locations to read between the lines. Which one of those "convenient to transportation" really means "sits right next to the El"? Which place looks nice, but you'll be showing up here to get any maintenance done?

Yeah, my first reaction is why in the world pay all that money for someone to check the ads. Ah, but that's because a city of 100,000 is about as big as I want to live in. Heck, when I stop and consider, where I live wouldn't even qualify as a suburb for city's with multi-million people.

[Florinaldo]

In some markets it does make sense to use an appartment broker, because of the size of the city, the diversity of units and neighbourhoods, the complexity of local regulations, and the time necessary to wade through the listings (including those lodgings that are not openly listed). But as I stated earlier, usually the broker is just an intermediary and has nothing to do with the lease and renovations to the unit. It seemed that in this case he was more directly involved, which probably explains the verdict of liability whereas usually she would have had no recourse against the broker for the work not being done in time.

[SRTouch]

1. bad breakup of maybe married couple (plus 1): the not-so-happy couple may or maybe not be married - he says they are, she says no, not legally. These folks are Muslim, and hubby claims they were married in their church, but are now divorced because under Islamic law they are divorced if they are separated for six months. Wife says they were never legally married. Anyway, they had a big fight and wife took out a restraining order barring him from their joint residence. So, maybe-wife kicked him to the curb with the help of her friend, the co-defendant. Now he suing because he claims they either trashed or kept 6 grand worth of his stuff when they locked him out the "marital home." So, maybe they're legally married, maybe they have a common law marriage, or maybe just unmarried couple living together... she got him barred from their joint domicile by means of a restraining order - which doesn't give her the right to dispose of his personal property - or any joint property as she sees fit. According to him, they didn't have a big fight just before the RO - no, he says they had already been separated for six months. So, he says the RO came out of the blue when he received a call from the police telling him he was barred from going home (says he was living in the house, and she had moved out six months previously). Sounds pretty fishy to me, but we haven't heard from her side yet. Ah, of course her version is different.... she says she was attending college in Pennsylvania, so would stay at school during the week, but return to the home in New Jersey on weekends. In Jersey they were semi-separated - different bedrooms, bathroom etc in the same house... oh and her two daughters (6 and 12yo, and he's dad to the 6yo)  live and go to school in Jersey. Oh, and the Jersey home is owned by her mother. (Hey, two intelligent sounding folks, and just listen to how polite and proper defendant talks to MM - Yes, Your Honor, No Your Honor). Anyway, pause in the case while MM explains that what she requested was a Temporary Restraining Order - granted pretty much automatically because someone is afraid for their life - with a later hearing date where he could argue his case. So, he says at the hearing for a permanent orider a Permanent order was granted... but he says she told the judge she was only there part time the judge at the hearing allowed him back into the home. So, when he goes back to the home he says he finds his stuff gone... ah, the stuff... she says it was musical equipment purchased to help her in her singing, song writing, producing career. She admits he used to help her in her career, but claims the equipment was hers. He claims it was his, and he has receipts. Hmmm, sounds like maybe it was jointly owned, either through marriage or as partners in her career, and she used the RO to get him out while she moved it elsewhere. Ah, now we learn that co-defendant is also her girl friend. He says the gf us named as a co-defendant because she drove the vehicle that took away the musical equipment. Anyway, remember the house belongs to her mother, and he has a better relationship with her mom than she does... maybe because of the gf, maybe mom is more into the traditional relationships in their religion (not knocking the Muslim religion here - you can find sects in pretty much any religion where one or the other spouse is treated as a second class citizen... or as property.) Oh well, when we get to the nuts and bolts of the claim, seems plaintiff wants full blown replacement price - plus upgrades. The big ticket item is some keyboard (I'm guessing the big thingy with all the sliding controls you see in recording studios). When purchased, it cost $1800. Ah, but he says, that one is obsolete, so a replacement is going to cost him over 3 grand. He won't get the replacement cost, but this is one piece that he brought into the relationship. She says the keyboard is 10 years old, and was his before their 8yo relationship began... ah, but she says, he gave it to her for her career. Nah, he gets whatever MM decides the depreciated value is for the keyboard, plus a split of the junk they bought after they got together. Ah, but he's making a pretty good case for the other stuff as work related items from his home office and studio. And she isn't helping her case when she admits to taking a non-working phone he used for work - she says it contains some of her contacts, but why not just copy the contacts? Nah, more she says the more it sounds like she's upset that he's no longer supporting her and the kids. And, since she isn't happy that her mom sides with him, and mom is the agreed upon third party in the visitation agreement, she hasn't been letting him visit the kids.... ah, this case belongs on Divorce Court and now MM is getting into rulings and violations from a family court which has no business being addressed here. One thing, any sympathy I had for defendant is evaporating as she is coming across as a vengeful and spiteful woman scorned type figure... too bad as there must be some truth to her abuse claims - after all she DID get a permanent restraining order. Rough Justice time... he wins, but gets a fraction of what he wanted $500 for the fancy keyboard he says is worth 3 grand). Course, she comes out beaming and he's disappointed even though he technically won.
2. this time landlord is suing the tenant: hmmmm, intro has me wondering if this isn't another case in the wrong court. Plaintiff is a landlord who has started eviction proceedings against defendant - her tenant. She says the tenant knows the system and is stalling the eviction - and meanwhile trashing the property... oh and defendant's teenager assaulted her... and, yes, defendant is STILL HER TENANT. Then there's defendant claiming landlord is just upset that her catering business is so successful, and she has a countersuit for 5 grand because of lost catering business and harrassment.... hmmm, I thought this was a case about an apartment. Is the place zoned and built to support a business? And, if that isn't enough, apparently the defendant is treating the place as her property, making unauthorized modifications/alterations (among other things, damaged roof when TV satellite was installed). Both sides come into the courtroom like experienced litigators - plaintiff has several folders and defendant pulls out a pen like she's going to be taking notes or checking stuff off her list as she makes a point ... sort of spoils the look as she squints like she needs glasses then leans on the lectern. MM has some trouble with the defendant still living there - especially as she doesn't even have a lease... hmmm where is this? I've heard of places, usually in California, where the law is bent over backwards to protect renters. Ok, plaintiff landlady is reaching here with her claims... like the deal with the satellite. Tenant puts up a satellite and landlady pay somebody $300 to take it down and patch the roof. No question tenant should pay as she didn't get prior permission. Ah, but landlady doesn't want the $300, she wants half the roof replaced. Ah, then tenant calls in and complaint to the city and city fined the landlord... and somehow, someway, landlady thinks she's going to get the tenant to pay the fine! Ok, soon as I hear this I figure landlady is crazy, I say dismiss and send her to housing court where this belongs. Over to defendant... talk about irritating. Not sure why I find her so bad, just what to hear the little Jewish granny yell "just-ah-move" all the way from California (or maybe Florida, depending on the day of the week). Hoboy, maybe she's so irritating because she's a "hustlah!" Who left her utilities in the prior tenant's name, racked up over 3 grand in bills, then complained to the city that the landlord turned off her gas - resulting in two $250 fines to the landlady. Just maybe landlady has some basis for wanting tenant to pay the fines. Then when MM catches tenant lieing about the utility scam. She denies it, then as MM is reading where the bill was in the prior tenant's name little miss squinty-eye is yelling out mid-MM-rant "May I please speak!" As we go to commercial we hear MM kicking out Miss Squints - "just turn around - walk out!" When we get back from commercial - before Squinty's eviction from court, she's yelling about pretty much everything. Yep, she must have the only furniture ever made that simply CAN NOT scratch hardwood floors... cuz "it's flat on the bottom."  After the courtroom eviction we get to watch poor Doug attempt to corral defendant as she storms through his domain. Then back to landlady for the bad news that some of her claim is nonsense... she does gets some of her claim, even though I figure it should be heard in housing court, and is probably premature because tenant can further damage (or even repair what is damaged) the place. I guess I understand the landlady filing this case... tenant already had housing court order her to pay over 5 grand and she's essentially a "squattah!" Living rent free, not paying the previous settlement nor any rent, but not moving so Landlady can repair and re-rent the place.
3. Used car kerfuffle: plaintiff moved from England, and bought a clunker from defendant's lot. Defendant says he replaced the first car she bought, she kept the replacement for a few weeks but now wants a refund - with a not so subtle dig in the intro that the hefty lady is just TOO hefty. This should be a short one, as the first case ran long and second was normal, so we only have 10 minutes for this one after the commercial break. Oh dear, I think this is the first time I've heard where the complaint is about the car remote not locking/unlocking the freeking door... and when the mechanic comes they take the car to the garage. Sure hope it needed more than a new battery! (Yeah , defendant says some lock actuator was bad.) Anyway, even after the trip to the garage, key fob problem persisted, so defendant swaps out the car for a different clunker... and....... now freeking dvr messes up and the short case gets even shorter. Anyway, the first clunker had a warranty, but the second one didn't. No chance of undoing the deal, she "didn't like it," has a hand written list of problems, but nothing from a mechanic... nope, not going to happen. But, hey, mid ruling, as MM is giving too her AS IS speech, defendant says he offered too her fix the second car even though it didn't have a warranty but she said no, she wanted the money back... hey wait, MM asks if he's still willing to fix it, he says yeah. MM has to spoonfeed silly plaintiff to get her to accept the guy's offer to fix the car, telling her she has lost her case. Nope, when she gets to Doug she says the ruling "sucks" and she's not going to take the offer to fix the car. She says she'll just sell it... Wonder what she expects to get... silly woman ought to let him fix it and THEN  sell it if she no longer wants it. Then we hear from defendant that she got a ticket on the loaner car that he had to eat because she refused to pay. Yeah, dude sounded reasonable, but I think the relationship must have gotten pretty contentious before it ended up in court.... Wonder if he really make the heft crack alluded to in the intro.

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

In some markets it does make sense to use an appartment broker, because of the size of the city, the diversity of units and neighbourhoods, the complexity of local regulations, and the time necessary to wade through the listings (including those lodgings that are not openly listed). But as I stated earlier, usually the broker is just an intermediary and has nothing to do with the lease and renovations to the unit. It seemed that in this case he was more directly involved, which probably explains the verdict of liability whereas usually she would have had no recourse against the broker for the work not being done in time.

Yeah, I'm sure you're right about the liability angle. From the little bit I understand, having never actually hired a broker, you pay for his knowledge, time and effort, and once he's found a place and you sign a lease his job has been done and he is paid. A couple things this guy had going against him was the texts where he was apparently promised a refund, and there was something about his lack of license and the way he does business that really seemed to get MM's hackles up. 

[AZChristian]

7 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Yeah, I'm sure you're right about the liability angle. From the little bit I understand, having never actually hired a broker, you pay for his knowledge, time and effort, and once he's found a place and you sign a lease his job has been done and he is paid. A couple things this guy had going against him was the texts where he was apparently promised a refund, and there was something about his lack of license and the way he does business that really seemed to get MM's hackles up. 

But didn't the judge find out that this guy is an agent who works for a broker, but he's not actually a broker? He was in no position to make a contract as a broker, so the contract could not be enforced.

[AngelaHunter]

Is this "Nutty Little People Week" here?

So litigants in the first case are married, but separated. They're going to be divorced. JM wants to know when. Oh, wait - plaintiff was mistaken -  they were never married, not legally anyway, def informs JM. Can't get a divorce when there's no marriage. Def, a saucer-eyed,  strangely robotic little person who claims to be a 38-year college student yet can't get the hang of basic, simple grammar,  says the non-marriage ended because plaintiff was "Physically, mentally and spirtually" abusive to her. Such a brute, such a martinet was he that she stayed with him for only eight years and decided to have only one child with him. Actually, it seems that after all those years, def. decided she prefers women to men. An epiphany, maybe? Thus, we had her witness/new female partner, "Tibet" (was that it? I couldn't catch any other names in this case). Tibet looked extremely talll, but it was hard to tell. At this point, I"d had enough of the whole mess.

 

The landlord who wanted tenant out was excruciating. Both litigants did not know how to shut up, to the point where JM just couldn't take snotty, mouthy, belligerent def any longer and threw her out. We caught a glimpse of Doug in the hall trying to question her, but she stormed past him as though he were the parparazzi and she a celebrity. JM then had to tell plaintiff to STFU too (and what was going on with her mouth and that chewing thing?) I know someone just like her (someone I haven't spoken to in 10 years) and it's exhausting. She's impossible to talk to because she can't shut up. Even when someone else is speaking, she can't listen but must keep up a steady stream of "Yeah, yeah, yeah" or butts in constantly. Anyway, I was glad when this case ended.

There must have been another case, but it's fled from my brain already. I need to start taking notes as I watch.

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Def, a saucer-eyed,  strangely robotic little person who claims to be a 38-year college student yet can't get the hang of basic, simple grammar,

Not just any college student, but a student at Penn, an Ivy League school. 

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Tibet looked extremely talll, but it was hard to tell.

I just thought Mutt and Jeff as I contemplated this very strange looking couple.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

ah, this case belongs on Divorce Court and now MM is getting into rulings and violations from a family court which has no business being addressed here.

I have no idea why she even went there.  Had nothing to do with the particulars of the case.  And the weird, we're married, but no, we're not really married shenanigans at the beginning, feh.  I guess it might be considered common law, if common law is recognized where they live.  Except that plaintiff seems to be following Islamic law, which I seriously doubt is recognized anywhere.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Tenant puts up a satellite and landlady pay somebody $300 to take it down and patch the roof. No question tenant should pay as she didn't get prior permission. Ah, but landlady doesn't want the $300, she wants half the roof replaced.

I just had half my roof replaced because of a leak in one small section.  The contractor, who has a good reputation in this area, said they don't do patch jobs as they're unreliable.  They also said that satellite dishes should never be put on the roof as they invalidate the roof warranty.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

MM is giving too her AS IS speech, defendant says he offered too her fix the second car even though it didn't have a warranty but she said no, she wanted the money back... hey wait, MM asks if he's still willing to fix it, he says yeah. MM has to spoonfeed silly plaintiff to get her to accept the guy's offer to fix the car, telling her she has lost her case.

I think TPC needs to put out a list of causes of actions that are instant fail so don't bother:  as-is used car sale, dog bite when your dog's off-leash, intentional infliction of emotional distress, lost wages for coming to court, pain and suffering without any physical injuries...

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I think TPC needs to put out a list of causes of actions that are instant fail so don't bother:  as-is used car sale, dog bite when your dog's off-leash, intentional infliction of emotional distress, lost wages for coming to court, pain and suffering without any physical injuries...

But, how could they then fill a hour of programming each day?

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I just thought Mutt and Jeff as I contemplated this very strange looking couple.

The defendant was already strange looking on her own, but with her two most recent mates, she formed quite the stark contrast. I think she has a type: tall and big. Hymalayan-sized Tibet was well named.

Her position and arguments were unsubstantial, and the highlight of the case was her upturned collar, which kept distracting me; I was glad Doug pointed it out to her and went as far as straightening it out. He is very touchy-feely with some litigants.

 

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

The landlord who wanted tenant out was excruciating.

The plaintiff should learn to shut up: she was winning just by letting the defendant being loudmouthed and talking very fast in the hope that her quick delivery would short-circuit the other person's reasoning processes. I suppose it works for her in real life.

I thought that the initial voice-over on the boring "as is" car sale was irritating as it set up a scenario of "US the land of the free vs those obnoxious foreigners who do not know our ways". Plaintiff and her gaggle were just plain silly.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Not just any college student, but a student at Penn, an Ivy League school. 

Hoo, boy. I"ve been saying for years that the next generation of doctors and lawyers will be using double negatives and saying "had went."  I just read a whole page about automobile accident/liability laws, presumably written by an attorney who can't spell "brakes."  I guess Ivy League schools need to start teaching spelling, punctuation and basic English grammar. Oh, better add "reading comprehension" too - you know, all the stuff we used to know by fourth grade. *sigh* I don't know why I'm surprised. I can't remember ever seeing a college student on this show who could speak properly. It's baffling. And depressing.

[teebax]

11 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Hoo, boy. I"ve been saying for years that the next generation of doctors and lawyers will be using double negatives and saying "had went."  I just read a whole page about automobile accident/liability laws, presumably written by an attorney who can't spell "brakes."  I guess Ivy League schools need to start teaching spelling, punctuation and basic English grammar. Oh, better add "reading comprehension" too - you know, all the stuff we used to know by fourth grade. *sigh* I don't know why I'm surprised. I can't remember ever seeing a college student on this show who could speak properly. It's baffling. And depressing.

I have been told repeatedly by my high school English students that language is about communication, and as long as they're understood grammar doesn't matter.

I usually counter by saying it matters when you're applying for college, or a job, or doing anything in which your credibility may come into question. When I read something or hear someone speak with horrific grammar, they lose all credibility with me. When I was a manager, resumes with misspellings and poor grammar immediately went in the trash.

My point is that someone is telling kids grammar doesn't matter. Since I'm hearing it from multiple students, I suspect they're hearing it from multiple people. It's horrifying. I still remember the first person who told me the plural of you is not youse. (I grew up near Philadelphia.) I haven't said it since.

I won't comment on her being from one of my alma maters, Penn. 

[AZChristian]

6 minutes ago, teebax said:

When I was a manager, resumes with misspellings and poor grammar immediately went in the trash.

I used to have a little side business which involved creating resumes.  I would tell every client, "The resume represents who you are on paper, and it is lined up with a whole bunch of other resumes.  You do not want 'who you are' to contain misspellings, poor grammar and inconsistent use of punctuation.  If a manager starts culling out applicants, those with badly done resumes are usually eliminated in the first round."

[Florinaldo]

20 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

You do not want 'who you are' to contain misspellings, poor grammar and inconsistent use of punctuation. If a manager starts culling out applicants, those with badly done resumes are usually eliminated in the first round."

That's assuming that the manager or HR people are competent enough in grammar and spelling to spot the language mistakes. And believe me, that is not a given in many companies, even in fields where communication is part of the core business.

Some employers are wise enough to have their in-house writers or editors (if they have any) take a look at the résumés they receive.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, teebax said:

I have been told repeatedly by my high school English students that language is about communication, and as long as they're understood grammar doesn't matter.

I've said it before. Language will continue to devolve until communication will consist of grunts, whistles and emoticons in "texes."

I remember watching TPC many years ago with Judge Wapner and do not recall litigants who couldn't string together a single grammatically correct sentence. It was only when I resumed watching this and started watching JJ that I noticed the magnitude of the problem and it's getting worse. I grew up in a neighbourhood with people (not my parents) who said "Youze" and "I seen" too but have never personally known or spoken to anyone who mangled the language this way.

1 hour ago, teebax said:

It's horrifying.

Yes. Yes, it is. Try reading some fanfiction. The widespread illiteracy is much worse when you see it in black and white. 

ETA: I think we need to start giving out complimentary mugs:

Edited October 5, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[AZChristian]

22 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

That's assuming that the manager or HR people are competent enough in grammar and spelling to spot the language mistakes. And believe me, that is not a given in many companies, even in fields where communication is part of the core business.

Some employers are wise enough to have their in-house writers or editors (if they have any) take a look at the résumés they receive.

Actually, as an Administrative Assistant, my managers would often ask me to review resumes early in the hiring process.  They knew I'd be looking for people who were demonstrating the ability to communicate clearly and professionally in writing.  I'd review the resumes and hand them back in three stacks:  those with misspellings and grammatical errors, those whose qualifications didn't seem to be the best match, and those who looked promising.  We usually called people from the second and third stacks in for interviews.