SRTouch December 19, 2017 Share December 19, 2017 October 10 rerun - talked about around page 84 tenant wants back security and some rent: Dave, plaintiff, handles unnamed brother's affairs because bro is mentally unable to take care of himself. Billy, defendant, rents house to brother for three years. Apparently, bro is something of a beer guzzling hoarder. When Dave moves Bro out, he leaves behind piles of "debris" behind the house next to a waterway. Ah, but Billy gave his permission to leave the trash.... he says because he didn't realise just how much trash was there. Before Billy gets around to cleaning it up, along comes the wind and 31 big bags of empty beer cans end up out in the waterway. Next thing good old boy Billy knows, the government is notifying him he'll be socked with a big fine for every day the trash in is the water. So, that's Billy's defense for keeping the deposit, it went towards the cleanup. Oh, and bro stayed a couple weeks past move out date, so forget the part of the claim dealing with overpaid rent - bro owed that money. Anyway, Billy put on an easy going face at first, but then gets upset when MM dares to question his story... and it doesn't help his case that Dave repeatedly asked about the return of the deposit and Billy dodged him. Rough justice time.... Billy keeps to keep the rent money, but hadn't proved anything else, and has to return half the deposit Lame video PSA case: pretty much a repeat of the case from the other day, but this time PSA deals with homeless problem instead of drugs. Again, plaintiff paid defendant to put together a short video, disappears leaving creative control with defendant, isn't happy with the final cut. Now she's in court not only wanted back the $150 she paid defendant, but what she paid someone else to do her video. Yeah, as if that makes sense. Case dismissed. runaway wheel: plaintiff thinks she hit the lottery when her front wheel comes off in traffic. Seems she has new tires put on three days before, so now she wants money for damage to her car and the trauma if watching her wheel roll away while she driving down the road. Defendant pretty sinks his case, just keeps insisting no way that could happen, he knows WTH he's doing, etc. Really should have pointed out that days had passed before the wheel came off, and some prankster, or someone who was made at plaintiff, might have loosened the lug nuts.... sounds crazy I know, but just think of all the stories of keyed cars and slashed tires we hear... oh, and some I had someone remove my lug nuts one time, never learned who or why, so it could happen. Anyway, he never suggests it might have been a some vandal, instead he keeps with the "wasn't me... I don't know what happened... I have proof wheel was installed correctly..." (his proof is a video of the shop which really doesn't show anything.) Besides, he says, if he HAD installed the wheel incorrectly, it wouldn't have taken 3 days to fall off. Nope, his "proof" fails to prove anything, and he never really suggests a third party might have messed with her car for some reason, just keeps insisting he did it right, so it is impossible for the wheel to come off.... yet we know IT CAME OFF. Ah well, the defense he presents goes no where, and MM decides for plaintiff, but no lottery win... no pain and suffering . 1 Link to comment
SRTouch December 20, 2017 Share December 20, 2017 (edited) September 20th rerun - comments back around pg 79 - I admit this is mainly written after liberal remote use and reading the old comments. wackadoddle actress tenant: this is New York actress, Caroline Saricusa (AKA Star Sira). Case really only memorable because there was quite a bit of discussion about the tenant, with folks trying to find her acting credits (supposedly on Sopranos, but I don't remember if anyone found her listed) and about how she started a GoFundMe account (it's not too late - I checked and the account is still up and only needs another 3 grand to meet her $6000 goal). Anyway, lots of back and forth about a room rented to the actress and whether or not she paid rent or was a squatter. Not much in the way of evidence, lots of yakity yak, and case went long, but eventually decided for defendant because of texts. bail money case: mercifully short case. Ghetto trash case, where female plaintiff arrested because of "an incident with a female," had good friend defendant withdraw money from plaintiff's account, then when that case was dismissed money returned to defendant because she signed the bail slip. Defendant figures she should get to keep the $700 because she went through all the effort to go down and pay the bail, but plaintiff argues she paid the bail with plaintiff's money, so money should be returned. These two are experts when it comes to being arrested and making bail.... oh, and when not in jail are busy producing the next generation of ghetto trash - plaintiff gave birth shortly before her arrest, the two have children old enough to date each other, and defendant already has daughter in training and brought said daughter to witness the court proceeding today. Like I said, short case, hard to listen to, but worth a look just to see plaintiff's getup - not too long a look, though, or your ears will hurt from her talking and she'll stick her tongue out at you. After your peek at the plaintiff, it's kind of fun to FF to defendant when she gets animated with her hand waving and gap toothed tirade trying to justify keeping the plaintiff's money. Really, just FF through the whole thing and watch the end when MM calls defendant a thief as she tries to talk over the judge, then the litigants are going back and forth yelling at each as they exit the courtroom. Poor Doug keeps a close eye on plaintiff as defendant comes out, and asks poor defendant's daughter, ghetto trash in training, to stand between the litigants so they don't go all Jerry Springer on him. Unfortunately, CC was no help interpreting plaintiff's hallterview - something about how she's "a boss," she's "gonna talk," and defendant is "mad and dirty", then she sticks out her tongue. Parting shot from Doug as she walks out, "stop getting arrested," and she laughs. broken dryer case: worth watching after previous case just to hear litigants talk and see someone dressed for court instead of bar hopping (or standing on a street corner.) Big, BIG, $165 case about some dude's broken dryer. Really, just watched first part where plaintiff starts in with his fancy prepared speech about moving into a beautiful new house with his beautiful new wife only to have MM reel him in. Actually something of a snoozer. Dryer wasn't drying clothes - called defendant, who diagnoses problem as bad control circuit board - plaintiff orders board and installs it himself (learned how watching repairman test circuit board) - problem not fixed - figures out vent clogged with lint - cleans vent - problem solved - puts old control board back in - still working - returns new circuit board - still working - in court asking for return of money for service call which resulted in misdiagnosis, plus money wasted shipping new circuit board back. Plaintiff wins, defendant accepts defeat with class... quite a difference after ghetto girls. Edited December 20, 2017 by SRTouch 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 20, 2017 Share December 20, 2017 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: plaintiff arrested because of "an incident with a female," And she's been arrested before, she states with a big, "Aren't I just the cutest?" big grin. Yes, getting arrested - more than once - for brawling in the street with "other females" like wild animals is just too charming for a mother of at least two, who seems to be setting a stellar example for the young'uns. Did these two just come here directly from Springer? Their behavior, their grammar, their insane yelling... Ugh. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: broken dryer case: I couldn't rewatch that one. The boredom factor was off the scale. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: plaintiff starts in with his fancy prepared speech about moving into a beautiful new house with his beautiful new wife I really hate it when litigants write their speeches/autobiographies and probably rehearse them in front of their mirrors. These characters are lucky they're in front of JM, because JJ would shut that shit down, no exceptions. 2 Link to comment
Guest December 20, 2017 Share December 20, 2017 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: I really hate it when litigants write their speeches/autobiographies and probably rehearse them in front of their mirrors. Did you ever see the I Love Lucy episode where the Mertz's sue the Ricardos? Lucy's from-the-heart (prepared speech) was much more interesting that Dapper Dan's. With the beautiful wife. In the beautiful home. With the junky dryer. Link to comment
Silver Raven December 21, 2017 Share December 21, 2017 Star Sira video on YouTube. I doubt that she's singing. 1 Link to comment
Eliza422 December 21, 2017 Share December 21, 2017 I remember trying to imdb her last time, and I’ve found nothing so far. Link to comment
AZChristian December 21, 2017 Share December 21, 2017 2 hours ago, Eliza422 said: I remember trying to imdb her last time, and I’ve found nothing so far. Check out Caroline Siracusa. Her only IMDB listing is for location management for The Bachelor. ("Hey, girl . . . go get me a Pepsi.") You can even find her gofundme. 1 Link to comment
SRTouch December 21, 2017 Share December 21, 2017 (edited) rerun from September 29 (discussion around pg 82) Brown couch turns pink: young yuppie couple hire defendant to clean their almost new couch, and thing turns pink. Case proves you can be a hateful litigant without butchering the language. Plaintiffs look like a nice young couple (tacked lawyer fees onto their claim because wife is a lawyer), but something tells me they might be pretty uppity and may not have been nearly as polite when dealing with defendant early on in their dispute. Doesn't matter much, defendant is asking for a smack down before he even opens his mouth... and MM delivers early on when he interrupts - shouting out "WRONG!" as plaintiff presents his side. He sort of reminds me of the tire shop owner the other day where lady's wheel came off. No way could anything his guy did turned the couch pink, plaintiffs must have bleached it trying to clean it themselves. Anyway, not only does the couch turns pink drying after being cleaned, but he comes by when plaintiffs aren't home and, without permission, takes the couch out of the open garage (they had painters there working). Oh, and he's countersuing for storage for the stolen pink couch. Defendant with the cartoon character tie loses... oh, and he's the guy with the tattoo on the back of his head, so if seeing that in the hallterview gave you nightmares last time you better fast forward to the next case. Sort of an entertaining case if you like watching MM smack down irritating loudmouths. teenager runs into three parked cars: not much of a case, just made it to court because kid had cut rate cheap insurance that had a cap and didn't cover damages. Oh, and we see a case where MM goes easy on teenager - again - when she should be giving him a stern talking to. Even worse, she gives plaintiff a hard time because he might have cussed at the kid when kid smashed into 2 of plaintiff's parked cars in the middle of the night. Not really worth watching a second time... except as a reminder to spend the money for real insurance - oh, and don't let your 17yo drive around with other teenagers in the middle of the night.... luckily, no injuries this time. tenant sues for deposit: another barely watchable case first time around, not worth a second viewing. Plaintiff rented a place long ago, left to go out of state, never got deposit back and suing now because statue of limitations running out. Landlord's whole defense is that tenant didn't give 60 day notice as specified in lease... but, dang it, he doesn't have a copy of the lease with him in court. Guess he was hoping judge would let it slide since tenant moved out a couple years ago... but, no, defendant still has texts where landlord made multiple promises to return the deposit - he was just short of cash at the time - nary a mention of a 60 day notice not being made. Dude gets his deposit back. Edited December 21, 2017 by SRTouch 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 21, 2017 Share December 21, 2017 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: Case proves you can be a hateful litigant without butchering the language. It was a great relief to hear people actually familiar with their own language, for a change. Def. is an arrogant, smart-assed little butterball. I hope he doesn't expect too many more recommendations after this - ruining plaintiff's sofa, stealing it and then deciding to keep it and all plaintiff's money because he didn't like the fact that plaintiff was annoyed at having his furniture wrecked and stolen and not being paid for it. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: teenager runs into three parked cars: As much as I adore JM, she really annoys me when she's all sympathetic to wrong-doers just because they're young and/or cute. Def. really knew how to do the "Golly gosh, I'm just an innocent boy and got confused and I'm soooo sorry (but not sorry enough to pay for the mayhem I created.") 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: Even worse, she gives plaintiff a hard time because he might have cussed at the kid when kid smashed into 2 of plaintiff's parked cars in the middle of the night. That totally pissed me off. Plaintiffs (who did nothing wrong and had their property destroyed) are just getting ready for bed and have to race outside because some kid's mommy lets him drive her car, he drives like a cowboy (probably showing off) can't tell the difference between the gas and the brake and smashes up both plaintiff's cars. It wasn't raining or snowing or foggy, either. Oooh, plaintiff called him a BAD WORD, and the boy just has to tell JM that. Seriously, it was like calling a name was worse than the wreakage left behind by the boy. Who wants to bet that when this angelic boy is with his friends, out of Mommy's sight, his language is not totally pure? I"m surprised his Mommy wasn't countersuing for the trauma incurred by her darling over being called a cuss word. JM, give it a rest. Not all kids are sweet snowflakes underneath, you know. 5 Link to comment
Brattinella December 21, 2017 Share December 21, 2017 44 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Plaintiffs (who did nothing wrong and had their property destroyed) are just getting ready for bed and have to race outside because some kid's mommy lets him drive her car, he drives like a cowboy (probably showing off) can't tell the difference between the gas and the brake and smashes up both plaintiff's cars. It wasn't raining or snowing or foggy, either. Oooh, plaintiff called him a BAD WORD, and the boy just has to tell JM that. Seriously, it was like calling a name was worse than the wreakage left behind by the boy. Hubby and I both agree, we would have said MANY bad words in the court following this! A bad word DOES NOT equal damage to property! Get over it, snowflake! 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 22, 2017 Share December 22, 2017 2 hours ago, Brattinella said: Hubby and I both agree, we would have said MANY bad words in the court following this! Oh, me too, if I went out and saw my new car smashed up by some silly boy and for no reason whatsoever. But really, these days it seems name-calling has become a felony, something to actually be mentioned as a part of a defense in a court. That's something little children whine about. 1 Link to comment
Brattinella December 22, 2017 Share December 22, 2017 I actually saw some cop show (can't remember what city) and the cop arrested the guy for CUSSING at him! Maybe it was Utah. Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 22, 2017 Share December 22, 2017 1 hour ago, Brattinella said: I actually saw some cop show (can't remember what city) and the cop arrested the guy for CUSSING at him! I understand that. No one - judges, cops, etc, can maintain a position of authority if everyone feels they can blatantly disrespect them. Link to comment
SRTouch December 22, 2017 Share December 22, 2017 (edited) Rerun from September 25, discussion back around pg 81... kind of an off day, cases not that interesting, and not clear on why MM decided things as she did tile color case: hard to understand this one... not only are litigants hard to understand because of their accents, but quite a few questions in the comments wondering about MM's ruling. Anyway, plaintiff ordered tiles for some reno after looking at pictures... yeah, no samples taken home. When tile comes in and gets delivered, she doesn't like the color. Wants her money back. Notable lack of evidence from both sides. What little evidence there was, in my opinion seemed to support defendant - but was brought by plaintiff. But MM goes the other way, and plaintiff wins... not sure why, except defendant spouted a lot of unreasonable nonsense and maybe should have spent a couple minutes preparing a defense instead of wasting MM's time and trying everyone's patience. pots and pans: during their oh-so-brief marriage, these two bought $3,000 worth of fancy cookware on credit, at least partly because he's a chef. When they split up, she took the pans and left him the bill... oh, and to date only a single $100 payment has been made. Defendant is a hateful person, seems proud to have the cookware while sticking ex with the bill, and has a counterclaim for the time she spent driving him around to medical appointments when they were together... oh, and they continued to live together for awhile after the divorce, but she says when she met a new man hubby had to go - and of course she brought new guy to court with her. Anyway, this is a case which should have been settled in the divorce, and MM can't really alter the divorce decree... nobody gets anything. bedbugs or just renter's remorse: single mother of at least 1 teenager is living with mom/grandmother. Granny tired of it, tells her to hit the road, so she rents an apartment from defendant. While still moving in, 17yo daughter/granddaughter finds a bedbug on her arm. So they never finish moving in, never spend a night, and are now back in at mother's/grandmother's place (just where she wants to be anyway). Defendant is on top of things, day after being told about the bugs she has exterminator there, and has a letter from the exterminator saying there's no sign of any bugs. Really, nothing showing there were EVER any bedbugs, except for plaintiff's testimony. Two apartments in building, defendant lives downstairs and plaintiff rented upstairs. MM asks defendant if she has bugs downstairs, she says no, but plaintiff, mommy interrupts with yes she does, she's got bites on her arms... why is she standing up anyway? Plaintiff brought multiple witnesses, and no one on that side of the aisle has any impulse control... they all shout out, interrupt and try to talk out of turn... and for some reason MM let's them get away with it. This is a case where we needed a JJ smackdown! Defendant totally reasonable, isn't even countersuing for the missed rent MM says she's entitled to. Ah, but that bites her in the end... plaintiff gets back her $400 security deposit because landlady let plaintiff move in without getting the lease signed... even though she has a couple claims of damage and a charge for heating oil, she has nothing proving plaintiff was supposed to pay for the oil or gouged a step. So defendant keeps 1 month rent (even though she was entitled to two, she didn't ask for the second) but has to return the security. Edited December 23, 2017 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
AKA...CJ86 December 23, 2017 Share December 23, 2017 (edited) On 12/17/2017 at 8:44 PM, AngelaHunter said: Hey, I can't remember everything from today. Hope your procedure goes smoothly! Thank you, appreciate it. I really do. It's the first a few small procedures, still have a few to go. I'll save those well wishes, because you never know If I'll ever have to share them back. Edited December 23, 2017 by CyberJawa1986 2 Link to comment
SRTouch December 25, 2017 Share December 25, 2017 (edited) merry Christmas court tv folks - September 27 rerun - comments start on pg 82 dog bite case: plaintiff does all the talking, but doesn't have a case. Long ago he and neighbor run into each other while out walking their leashed dogs. Dogs get into some little scuffle, plaintiff falls down after getting tangled up in leashes. Claims he had a scrap on his hand, and didn't realise defendant's dog had nipped him til later. Says he talked to doctor, was told to wash it and put on some antibiotic cream, so no medical bills from the bite. Few days later, says he blacked out and had a car accident. Says everything can be traced back to the dog bite, so wants defendant to pay for everything. Problem is the medical records don't support his claim. Yes they cleaned the bite site and noted it could be infected, but also note other medical problems. Oh, and dude has already been paid $1000 by defendant's home owners insurance for the bite - guess he thinks he deserves a second bite of the apple for the car wreck because the bite is mentioned in the medical records. Defendant doesn't really need to say anything as plaintiff has no case... but he admits he saw his dog nip the guy's hand, but can't really remember much else as this happened a couple years ago and he put it out of his mind when his insurance settled with the guy. Nope, no bonanza today, case dismissed. Parking lot bump: another non-case. This time plaintiff driving along and idiot defendant backs out of a parking space into plaintiff's car. Pretty much a non-case, as plaintiff obviously had right of way. More a case of defendant hoping plaintiff will let it slide because it isn't a lot of damage. Both sides get their time moving the pieces around the white board diagram... defendant going to lose just based on his own testimony. Ah, but wait, plaintiff adds that the whole thing was caught on video, and he has the recording. Defendant was going to lose anyway, but now we see plaintiff driving along, come to a complete stop when he sees defendant start backing out, and defendant backing into plaintiff's stopped car... sort of torpedoes defendant's story that plaintiff was speeding as we see he had come to a stop before being struck. Unlike some litigants who continue to cling to their story, defendant just smiles, he knows he's caught in a lie, but isn't the least bit sorry - instead of biting the bullet and accepting the blame, he tries to argue the damage estimate is inflated. Nope, MM notes it would have been better if plaintiff had more than 1 estimate, but the one he brought is reasonable to her, so plaintiff gets what he asked for. tenant wants back deposit: your typical tenant who trashes a place, then is shocked the owner expects it back in the condition it was rented. Who knows, maybe she really doesn't see why the landlord wouldn't love her sloppy paint job (oh, let's not forget painting half of the dark woodwork trim white - and I'm talking halfway up, not one side of a room). I mean, look at the way she's dressed for her to appearance... maybe she really likes the terrible paint job she did on the owners property. And the rest of the damage landlord kept money for... why that was like that when she moved in! Well, yes, she admits, she signed a form saying everything was good when she moved in, but she didn't read it, and really and truly, the bathroom was all moldy and the floors were scratched and and and the place was a mess. Oh well, not much to write about here. ... but really, you expect her to read the lease before she signs... There, I already said more than the original recap... boring - surprising that anyone would think they deserve their deposit back - cartoon get up with multi-color hair and that Betty Boop voice. Edited December 25, 2017 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
AKA...CJ86 December 26, 2017 Share December 26, 2017 Plaintiff in the dog bite case. I thought it during the original airing and still think it with today's rerun, regarding his episode. I think he was embarrassed he had an episode and had to have a reason to have his episode. But he wants MM and us to buy that a dog bite led to an infection, led to an episodee, led to a car accident, and led to a potential bonanza in TPC. Oh Sir, you have a lot more problems than that episode. So yeah, I totally think it wasn't the plaintiff going after defendant (his neighbor was it), but defendant was just a victim of circumstance as plaintiff crafted his story and I think he was attempting to craft a story to have an excuse for his episode and he's not crazy. But trying to peddle his story made him come off as a total macadamia. Okay, so today I was stuck at home because of some of my health issues, and I let my imagination run a little wild with today's episode. Maybe this is why I'm not a litigant, but why do so many come in with evidence they say will prove their case only for it to not say that in the least, and occasionally contradict their case? When the litigants and their practices, their conversating, when it all starts to make sense, then I'll know something is wrong with me. 4 Link to comment
AZChristian December 26, 2017 Share December 26, 2017 9 hours ago, CyberJawa1986 said: But trying to peddle his story made him come off as a total macadamia. So descriptive!!! 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 26, 2017 Share December 26, 2017 10 hours ago, CyberJawa1986 said: But trying to peddle his story made him come off as a total macadamia. As my mother used to say, "Nutty as a fruitcake." 10 hours ago, CyberJawa1986 said: why do so many come in with evidence they say will prove their case only for it to not say that in the least, and occasionally contradict their case? Even now, that always has me shaking my head. JM: "Do you have a contract/lease/warranty(or whatever)that proves what you're saying?" Litigant: "Yes. I have that right here." (Waves paper/tries to approach bench/gets herded back by Douglas) JM, perusing evidence: "Why are you giving me this? This isn't a contract/lease/warranty! It's just a piece of paper that you typed up this morning/ is not signed/contradicts what you are claiming!!" Litigant/fruitcake/scammer/liar: "Oh/Exactly/I'm nervous/I guess I didn't bring that with me today." 5 Link to comment
SRTouch December 26, 2017 Share December 26, 2017 (edited) October 5 episode - comments back around pg 83 (one of those I didn't recap) mobile detailer wants his money: plaintiff has a niche business where he goes to where the vehicle is and details it for you - not a bad idea and looks like it pays well if he can stay busy... oh, and he's a dancer, can't stand still, continually bouncing from side to side, lots of hand/arm waving, very animated - had me wondering if he might be chemically enhanced. At one point MM has him sit to try to get him under control. MM, "Have a seat! You just agitate me too much!" Seems defendant hired him to do his 2 cars and a boat, wasn't happy with the job, and stopped payment on the $650 check. Really no question dude did a poor job, he even came back a couple times trying to correct deficiencies. Not just nitpicking by defendant, since we see pictures of the completed job and what I'm looking at does not look like it was just detailed by a professional. Ah, but we're looking at a ten year old vehicle. We could be looking at stuff that will not look good no matter what is done. Then we have multiple texts where defendant is promising to pay, but never does. When MM points out that a week after he initially stopped payment he was promising to write another check, defendant gets tongue tied and can't answer...that does it for MM, case over, pay the man. Boxing club sale (boxing with gloves and a ring, not packing stuff to be mailed): plaintiff says he sold his club to defendant. Ah yes, I remember this defendant. She bought this as a side business, then after the purchase she left the old owner in charge while she left town on a business trip for her regular job. The case is about money she was supposed to pay him for running the business while she was gone. He says she owes him 3 grand for that period. She's countersuing asking for a couple grand because she says he did say lousy job. Says a couple dozen club members took early outs on their contracts during that time because of the way he was running things, which reduced the value of the club. Thing is she really has nothing showing WHY those people quit, was it something he did, or maybe they just reevaluated being members when they learned management was changing. Nope, she really has no defense, do he wins. car swap among friends: turn on cc if you want to understand anything defendant is saying. ah, the usual, plaintiff - we were life long friends, I didn't think he'd unload a lemon on me. Defendant - was just trying to do right by my friend, wasn't running a scam, really and truly, I have the evidence, your honor, just not with me today (funny, I guess that satchel he brought with him is for carrying his lunch, not evidence) . Convoluted stories from both sides, but nothing new.... I gave up early on this one and zipped to the end. What I gather is that plaintiff had a ford 150 pickup that had an problem overheating. She takes it to her good friend, who tells her it will cost a grand to fix, but hey he's selling cars, how bout a swap. He gives her a junker that barely runs, she says noway, give me back my truck. Ah, but her truck is gone... MM asks twice where it is, he answers twice, without CC i wouldn't know he's claiming he junked it. Defendant is in court saying he's a car dealer, has a business name and everything, but evidently hasn't figured out details like records and registering titles, and that sort of thing. Plaintiff wins as there is no evidence vehicle ownership ever changed hands. She gets 2 grand, which MM figures is what her MIA F-150 is worth, plus $420 for something I must have skipped over. Edited December 26, 2017 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
SRTouch December 27, 2017 Share December 27, 2017 (edited) October 11 rerun, original comments back around pg 84... first case skipped, 2nd a yawner, but #3 worth the 2nd look pit vs shih tzu: I see from the recap that I just watched the intro and the rough justice portion, but this is one of the worst of the clueless owners I can remember. Watched even less this time. Seems plaintiff was walking her little dog, saw the pit following them and put her little dog on top of a car. Pit got her dog anyway. Pit's owner has a multiple defenses, some laughable - some plain infuriating. Laughable defense #1, dude argues no way can his 1 foot tall dog jump the 4ft fence... uh dude, most dogs are natural athletes. My brother had a pitty pup dumped in his yard. When it grew up it could hop over a six foot fence as easily as I go up a step. As a kid I had a german Shepard that could clear an 8 foot wall with a running start. 'Nother silly defense, he tries to argue there were no witnesses... uh guess he means no independent witness, but MM lands on him with both feet, pointing out that the plaintiff is all the witness needed. Besides, she notes, defendant is his own worse witness... he admits his dog got out - somehow - and plaintiff's dog was mauled (he says at one point she exaggerated the injuries, but plaintiff has the vet records in court) - STRICT LIABILITY, DUMBASS!!! Oops, now we getting to the infuriating part.... enough, suffice it to say that this idiot has 3-4 pit bulls (according to plaintiff's opening statement) in a yard with a 4 foot fence, one got out and mauled another animal, and idiot is in court arguing about liability... worst part is he's too dense to realise the yard is insecure, so same thing could happen again... even worse, all his dogs could get out and hunt down a human - he'll be shocked and wonder who let them out, and the media will have another horror story about the breed because of the owner not having a working brain cells in his head. house rental: plaintiff (who has a long drawn out opening rehearsed and ready to go) transfered out of state for his job, rents a house, shows up to move in, old tenants are hold overs so can't move in on date it's supposed to be available. Part of his claim is for cost/hassle of waiting for place to become available. Ah, but that part of the claim ends up being tossed, since they already settled when the landlord offered to pay the storage and a month free rent and plaintiff accepted the month of no rent. He ends up waiting and moving in, but tells landlord he's going to move out once he has time to shop for a better place. Landlord is good with that, as long as guy gives him enough notice and he can find other tenants. So, things are good - until they aren't. Plaintiff finds a place, gives plenty of notice, and moves. Ah, but it's off season for renting out houses, so even though landlord is advertising, even lowering the asking pride, no new tenants show up. When he told plaintiff months before it would be okay to break the lease, that depended on him finding new tenants... no new tenants, so MM decides he gets the early termination fee. Ah, but when he can't find anyone to move in, he decides to go ahead and do some renovations. He gets greedy and decides to keep the security deposit, and justifies that today by claiming tenant left place infested with fleas so that he had to replace the carpet... but has no evidence of any fleas, dude just wanted new carpeting with his renovations. Sooo... everybody wins - plaintiff gets back deposit - defendant gets the early termination fee... net result, defendant gets $500 cause the fee was more than the deposit. Car extended warranty case: ah, this one is interesting, worth a second viewing for the surprise ending. Plaintiff bought an extended warranty when he bought his used car. Thing is, warranty promised to return the cost of the warranty if dude still owns the vehicle when it runs out if there hasn't been any warranty work done in that period. Well, no work had been done, so when time is up plaintiff asks for the promised 2 grand. And now things get dicey. This was a third party warranty, and that company has since gone bankrupt. Actually, sounds like a scam... as the company was owned by another company, so when enough claims are made the guaranteeing company goes belly up, but the company that actually owes belly up company just opens up business under a new name. Anyway, sounds like plaintiff is out if luck.... ah, but here's somebody who actually reads the fine print. Yeah, the contract that defendant sold plaintiff has a clause that if there is any problem, plaintiff is to take it up with whoever sold him the policy. More double talk from the scammer company, but this time they're scamming the auto dealer who is selling their lousy policy. Oh, this is great, as it sure looked like oily used car dude was going to get away with selling this too-good-to-be-true warranty that promised to return the premium if not used. Dealer/defendant has to admit that he has never actually read the contract of the policy he sold his customer, so MM has Douglas take it over so he can read it. Hoboy, MM gets excited, she's never seen the like in all her years on the bench - Plaintiff wins. Edited December 27, 2017 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 27, 2017 Share December 27, 2017 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: Car extended warranty case: ah, this one is interesting, worth a second viewing for the surprise ending. It is. First, because the plaintiff is probably one of only 2 (max 3) idiots - I mean people who would pay 2200$ for an extended warranty on a seven year old car. Second, because def, the car dealer who sold him the warranty has no idea what he's selling since he never bothered to read the terms. The warranty makes no sense, since the company can't make any money, so they place the onus of returning the unused 2200$ on the car dealer, who was very surprised to find out this fact. Car dealer in the hall admits that maybe he should read what he's giving to car buyers. Ya think? 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: house rental: plaintiff (who has a long drawn out opening rehearsed and ready to go) I couldn't listen to Fred Flintstone and his tale of woe a second time. I just know he should have stayed home, since not only did he lose, but had to pay def, even though def had no proof whatsoever of anything he said. He had evidence and pictures and everything of the destruction plaintiff left behind, but well, his wife deleted them all. I guess some people think that saying you have evidence or witnesses that are absent or nonexistent is enough. Lucky for him he still had the text messages. 3 Link to comment
Brattinella December 27, 2017 Share December 27, 2017 O/T: @AngelaHunter, we are in the same time zone; how cold is it there? We got all the way UP to 29F today. Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 27, 2017 Share December 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, Brattinella said: how cold is it there? RIght now it's -6F. It's squeaky, creaky snow weather. I hate it. 1 Link to comment
Brattinella December 27, 2017 Share December 27, 2017 1 minute ago, AngelaHunter said: RIght now it's -6F. It's squeaky, creaky snow weather. I hate it. We didn't hardly get any snow, it is just GD cold!! And our neighbor leaves his DOG outside all day! :(( Link to comment
SRTouch December 28, 2017 Share December 28, 2017 (edited) ah, a puzzle! According to my DVR info, I'm supposed to be watching a rerun from September 28. Nope, what I have on has nothing to do with "Romance rent rage" - in fact I don't recognize these folks who are fighting over a dog. Hmmm looking ahead to tomorrow, I see a new episode titled "Return My Beloved Dog" - all my program info lists is original air date and title for first case... wouldn't be at all unusual for my schedule to be wrong... or could it be that I overslept and it's actually Friday... oh no, if that's true, it means I'm supposed to be in Norman at a doctor's appointment right now. (And, guess this is a good time to say there will be no recap tomorrow, as I'll be up in the City and probably won't watch till I get home. But, after watching, I'm pretty sure this is tomorrow's episode.) Ok other thing is two long cases instead of normal three in fact recap posted here did turn out to be for the next day - so I moved it down Edited December 30, 2017 by SRTouch Moved recap down 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 28, 2017 Share December 28, 2017 Not the same repeats I got, SRTouch. I got the retired cop suing his ex-squeeze, Patricia, because they've become only friends WITHOUT benefits and he wants all the rent the free-loading Patricia owes him. The only part worth a rewatch is that Patricia, who feels that other people should support her, looks like a refugee from "Real Housewives of New Jersey" and is sporting a circa-1984 Elizabeth Taylor type wig. Crazy, both of them. Oh, also, the plaintiff, Peter, who claims defendant hit his car. This remains truly astonishing since plaintiff's own dashcam clearly shows him zipping right across a solid white line and hitting def. Obviously she's another one who was driving with a cloaking device on her car since he never saw her. Even plaintiff's insurance company agrees it's their client's fault (nice of him to provide the very evidence that proves his guilt). JM watched the vid multiple times and explained over and over to plaintiff why he was dead wrong. None of that mattered to Peter though, as he still argued it wasn't his fault in his hallterview. He is a person who should not possess a iicense. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch December 28, 2017 Share December 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Not the same repeats I got, SRTouch. I got the retired cop suing his ex-squeeze, Patricia, because they've become only friends WITHOUT benefits and he wants all the rent the free-loading Patricia owes him. The only part worth a rewatch is that Patricia, who feels that other people should support her, looks like a refugee from "Real Housewives of New Jersey" and is sporting a circa-1984 Elizabeth Taylor type wig. Crazy, both of them. Oh, also, the plaintiff, Peter, who claims defendant hit his car. This remains truly astonishing since plaintiff's own dashcam clearly shows him zipping right across a solid white line and hitting def. Obviously she's another one who was driving with a cloaking device on her car since he never saw her. Even plaintiff's insurance company agrees it's their client's fault (nice of him to provide the very evidence that proves his guilt). JM watched the vid multiple times and explained over and over to plaintiff why he was dead wrong. None of that mattered to Peter though, as he still argued it wasn't his fault in his hallterview. He is a person who should not possess a iicense. Ah, yes, that sounds like what I SHOULD have seen according to my schedule - definitely not what I watched today. If my local provider goes as it often does, tomorrow I'll see a repeat of today's episode. Link to comment
AZChristian December 28, 2017 Share December 28, 2017 37 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Oh, also, the plaintiff, Peter, who claims defendant hit his car. This remains truly astonishing since plaintiff's own dashcam clearly shows him zipping right across a solid white line and hitting def. I don't know why JM didn't just say (upon the first view of the video), "You crossed a solid white line. You had no right to be in that lane, whether there was traffic in your lane or not. Judgment for the defendant. Period." 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 29, 2017 Share December 29, 2017 1 hour ago, AZChristian said: I don't know why JM didn't just say (upon the first view of the video), "You crossed a solid white line. I didn't understand why she never mentioned that either since solid lines are there because drivers cannot see what's coming. I guess maybe cement-headed plaintiff was so wrong about everything it wasn't necessary? 2 Link to comment
aemom December 29, 2017 Share December 29, 2017 (edited) I'm finally almost caught up with the new shows, only one to go. I've been enjoying all the recaps and comments from everyone. I normally watch the shows over 2-3 days of the week as I work on laundry, but my machine was broken for 2 weeks, so I really fell behind on my watching while going elsewhere to get it done. The tractor guy was unreal and I loved how Dusty finally picked it up and then gave it to Tommy. The ragey tow truck guy was such a first class asshole. So glad that MM kicked him out. Finally the guy who slipped on the water with the Islamophobic sign - what an awesome neighbor. I've blanked out of my memory all the assorted women who threw money at more loser guys. Edited December 29, 2017 by AEMom Typo 3 Link to comment
meowmommy December 29, 2017 Share December 29, 2017 11 hours ago, AZChristian said: I don't know why JM didn't just say (upon the first view of the video), "You crossed a solid white line. You had no right to be in that lane, whether there was traffic in your lane or not. Judgment for the defendant. Period." Because she has 20 minutes (minus commercials, minus Levin, minus the coming-ups) to fill. A huge number of these cases could be disposed of in about 30 seconds if MM only considered the merits of the case. JJ makes more sense doing two cases in 30 minutes vs MM doing three cases in 60. I don't watch the reruns but it's so nice to see SRTouch keeping up with the recaps. Such a tremendous mitzvah. 5 Link to comment
aemom December 29, 2017 Share December 29, 2017 2 hours ago, meowmommy said: I don't watch the reruns but it's so nice to see SRTouch keeping up with the recaps. Such a tremendous mitzvah. Same here and kudos to SRTouch for the recaps especially since it makes it so much easier for me to find particular episode discussions in the thread. 5 Link to comment
AZChristian December 29, 2017 Share December 29, 2017 3 hours ago, meowmommy said: Because she has 20 minutes (minus commercials, minus Levin, minus the coming-ups) to fill. A huge number of these cases could be disposed of in about 30 seconds if MM only considered the merits of the case. JJ makes more sense doing two cases in 30 minutes vs MM doing three cases in 60. I don't watch the reruns but it's so nice to see SRTouch keeping up with the recaps. Such a tremendous mitzvah. True . . . but in this case, it would have taken her 20 minutes to look up the statutes and show the plaintiff that crossing the solid white line is against the law in ALL states. And plaintiff STILL wouldn't have "gotten it." 4 Link to comment
SRTouch December 30, 2017 Share December 30, 2017 (edited) ok, my provider had a hiccup and I saw the same show two days in a row--- recap I posted yesterday was supposed to be shown today... and unless I'm totally discombobulated, this is a NEW EPISODE they stole my dog: ok, what I'm seeing, and what you may or not be seeing tomorrow... plaintiff all broken up because defendant, her cousin, has her dog and won't give poor Noodle back. Hmmm, first impression of plaintiff not all that favorable... can't hardly talk, all broken up - MM has to warn her to pull it together and present her case - but I'm not seeing actual tears, not even watery eyes, through her glasses - though she does rub her eyes and Doug gives her a tissue when she gets outside. It takes zero time for her case to fall apart. Seems Noodle was never actually her dog - no he was a family dog belonging to her Aunt. In the past Auntie told her that she could have Noodle if something ever happened that Auntie couldn't keep her herself. Well, seems that time came, Auntie - who lives with Granny - could no longer care for Noodle. But, when it came time to actually rehome the dog, plaintiff is living in a crowded place with many critters, a 6 months old son and bf - Auntie isn't sure that's the best home for beloved Noodle. But, hey, her son, defendant/cousin to plaintiff, has a much nicer home with a big yard... so she gives him the dog. Big BIG kerfuffle causes major family rift, now plaintiff wants nothing to do with the family, won't even let granny see her baby great-grandson anymore. Ah, but my take on this is that the kerfuffle has more to do with something besides Noodle... jealousy maybe, and plaintiff thinking the kin folks look down on her and her broke ass lifestyle. Doesn't matter much, animal was never hers, but always was her Aunt's property, so she has no case. Across the aisle... quite the gathering over there as defendant brought the rest of the family. Hmmm, listening to these folks sounds like quite the family of losers. Not sure how many folks were crowded into granny's house, but at first it was at least granny, Auntie, a cousin, and plaintiff - oh and Noodle. Then a couple new arrivals, the baby is born and cousin gets another dog (who plaintiff says picks on poor Noodle). Plaintiff moves out to other granny's house, but says Aunt told her she could have Noodle once she had a better place to live. Supposedly she has an old trailer she's been "renovating" for the past year that she will eventually move into... hmmm is bf bouncing back and forth with her as she moves from granny to granny - sure doesn't sound like she works, wonder if he does? Ok, months go by with plaintiff coming over every other day or so to visit "her" dog - and no doubt avail herself of free babysitting from granny and Auntie when other granny is busy. After about six months of this, cousin brings over his new gf, who falls in live with Noodle. (Not sure if this is same cousin who was living at granny's or a new character in the mess.) Anyway, plaintiff says granny gave new gf HER dog, which of course was actually Auntie's dog. That's when the sh#t hits the fan, and for the last six months cuz' new main squeeze have had possession of Noodle. Ah, additional twist, plaintiff is suing cousin, but Noodle was actually given to gf, who is the new official owner as for the first time in his 7 years of life Noodle is licensed - as gf's dog. So, not only is plaintiff suing for a dog (or its value) that was never hers, she's suing the cousin instead of the person who gave away the dog or the gf who is the new owner.... ah well, this is where I gave up on this convoluted mess. I thought this was a case about a dog being loved by all these folks who all wanted him... no, case is just about a family feuding and fussing about who gets what - before there's even a death in the family. I stop listening at this point and zip ahead. Ok, cousin must be another piece of work. Previews had him sending a text saying he's a Marine and hopes to go into law enforcement - but once he gets outside, old tell-it-like-it-is Doug says he came off as a slime ball, in court - not sure what that's about and not going back to find out... oh, and we see Doug give plaintiff the tissue to wipe her nonexistent tears... and, let's not forget granny who comes and staring up at Doug calling defendant a slime - Doug is quick to tell her he's not actually calling anyone a slime, but that's the impression that was the impression viewers will have - granny tosses out something about *beep* plaintiff keeping great-grandson away from her and not living in the *beep* trailer that was given to her ... yep quite the family group... oh, of course case was dismissed. wedding seamstress case: ok, I never think much of these dress cases, but sometimes they have some great characters and can be interesting when thought of as contract cases. In this one, we have a unique outfit being worn by seamstress/plaintiff, along with a fight over whose fault it is that the wedding was cancelled. Grumpy looking plaintiff, hair done up in pigtails and wearing a hoody over her top, and a sweatshirt over the hoody, argues that she's still owed money for the dresses she made for defendant's wedding party - a wedding that was canceled on the day of the wedding because the groom was already married... Wonder if the wife of the groom stood up when preacher asked if anyone has a reason why the loving couple can't get hitched. Hmmm, intro as defendant comes in seems to indicate wedding took place, but parts (like pictures and limo ride) had to be scrapped because plaintiff was late delivering the dresses... she's countersuing for 3 grand because of the stuff she lost out on. Ok, after commercials, MM starts right in by tossing part of plaintiff's claim... seems she not only wants the balance owed for her work, but wants to tack on gas, tolls, and travel expenses to the amount she claims is owed for the dresses... why asks for your damages when you can ask for more? MM: did you have some contract that entitled you to gas and tolls? P: uh noooo. MM: but you're mad, so you want that, too? P: ah ha ha laughs plaintiff grump... Right off the bat plaintiff says she met the defendant through another customer, and doesn't have a written contract... yeah, always a dumb move, but especially when other party is going through planning a wedding and has a gazillion details swirling through their heads. Of course MM points out that's always a bad idea... and right away plaintiff gets on my nerves as she is talking away as MM is talking. MM doesn't call her on the talking-over bit, but she does stop talking to plaintiff to ask defendant questions - oh dear, she's sort a mush mouth or something, almost need cc for this one.. Ok, everybody agrees there is a balance still owed on the dresses, amount differs, it's just that defendant is arguing she shouldn't have to pay because they arrived too late to be used. Ok, defendant is starting out right, she actually produces receipts backing up her claim of what the balance owed totals. Hmmm, thought the remaining balance was in dispute, but now when MM totals the receipts and announces the total, plaintiff says "exactly"... maybe I heard wrong, but not worth rewinding to hear it again. Now we're into what went wrong. First off, some piss poor planning. Dresses not scheduled for delivery until day before the wedding - oops, guess there was a final fitting a week before the wedding, but adjustments needed to be made, hence the day before wedding delivery date. Of course, as so often happens, things are hectic, rehearsal dinner goes long, etc, delivery put off til wedding day. Then, on the day of the event, plaintiff is late arriving, all the adjustments haven't been made, etc. Ah, wedding supposed to start at 3:30, dresses didn't arrive til 5:45. Ah, not good, when MM asks if dressmaker lady was given a deadline to have the dresses there and bride looks to the side and admits that, no, we didn't tell her when to have them there. Huh, this wasn't just delivering finished dresses to be put on, these were dresses she knew had issues that needed to be addressed after the final fitting. Ah, time for the side trip... yes, big time stressor going on. Along with all the normal problems of putting on a big church wedding, there's news that they couldn't get the license because groom still legally married to soon to be ex. Defendant still going through with the wedding reception, knew about the soon to be ex wife but divorce decree has stalled, plans to straighten that out later... Back to let plaintiff answer some of questions raised by defendant's testimony. When asked she disputes that she didn't arrive with the dresses at 5:45... nooooo, she left her house at 3 o'clock. Huh!?! The wedding starts at 3:30, and she's leaving her house at 3! Heck, she's late even if she lives next door. Didn't I hear hair and makeup was scheduled for 11am? Ok, we heard defendant's side testify about when the wedding was to start, but really no proof... Guess it doesn't matter, since plaintiff didn't argue the ceremony start time, just argues she wasn't ready to deliver the dresses til 3 - and argues she arrived around 4... and when she finally arrives she says defendant told her the wedding is not happening... aw, but they still were planning on having the photos and reception... hmmm, does defendant's admission that she wasn't told when to bring the dresses matter, as even a rock would know to ask - even without asking, 4 o'clock is way late for a 3:30 event - it's not just the dress' arrival, the wedding party has to actually get freeking dressed after their arrival. Nah, even if everything was great, I wouldn't award plaintiff the balance due. So, anyway, guests are sitting in the church as everybody is waiting for the dresses. Dresses arrive, scrabble for everybody to get dressed, and seams are splitting, seamstress holding things together with safety pins... whoa, back up the bus, now defendant admits the ceremony WAS canceled. Seems she put on the dress made for the reception, and she and groom went before the guests in the church - didn't want the preacher to make the announcement - and announced no ceremony today, wedding delayed, but reception still going to happen - let's party. Ah, delayed because of the dresses, or that pesky non-final divorce? Hmmm, and does it matter? Plaintiff failed to deliver on time and delivered sub par dresses, no way should she get paid the balance. Sounds like all the dresses had problems. They tried to press on and at least have the reception and take some pictures, but defendant is using those photos to show what was wrong with the dresses. Ah, the ultimate failure, defendant is on the party bus for the reception, gets up, back rips out and she's showing her panties to the world. Over to grumpy seamstress, wasn't ripped when I delivered it, don't know what she did at the reception.... oh yeah, and more interrupting and talk over as MM questions why that matters, a dress defendant paid big money for should not be ripping an hour or two after being put on. Again, when MM asks plaintiff agrees a well made dress should not have ripped... just like in the dispute over the balance owed plaintiff answers "exactly," while continuing to argue. Time for some show and tell. Defendant brought the dresses to court... yep, safety pins holding stuff together, cheap zipper that broke first time dress was zipped up... hmmm maybe someone who dresses for national TV like this seamstress thinks ripped seams and safety pins are normal when paying hundreds for a dress. Nah, no money for plaintiff, and what if anything could defendant have done with the limo and photographer had the ceremony gone as planned had quality dresses arrived on time. Really, plaintiff actually came on national tv asking for over a thousand MORE dollars for these rags!?! More she argues, more I say give defendant every penny of the 3 grand countersuit. Ah, course that's not how MM rules. Plaintiff's case is easy, MM says no way, that is tossed, defendant does NOT have to pay any more for these dresses. Ah, but the counterclaim... nope, MM says plaintiff only owes defendant $250. Hmmm, anybody hear what defendant actually paid? Did she get her money's worth in material if another seamstress remakes the dresses? Ok, long case that I was fed up with early on, but hallterview is great. Geez, argumentative plaintiff just keeps coming back to get in that last word. Must have walked away and come back 3 or 4 times, not only didn't win her case, but had to return some of her money, but walks out claiming to have won... huh? What did she win? And I'm again wondering who would hire her to make clothes with her fashion sense? Edited December 30, 2017 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
meowmommy December 30, 2017 Share December 30, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: ah well, this is where I gave up on this convoluted mess. I thought this was a case about a dog being loved by all these folks who all wanted him... no, case is just about a family feuding and fussing about who gets what - before there's even a death in the family. I stop listening at this point and zip ahead. Ok, cousin must be another piece of work. Previews had him sending a text saying he's a Marine and hopes to go into law enforcement - but once he gets outside, old tell-it-like-it-is Doug says he came off as a slime ball, in court - not sure what that's about and not going back to find out...oh, and we see Doug give plaintiff the tissue to wipe her nonexistent tears... Basically MM read out loud texts from defendant to his cousin taunting her because he's an all-that Marine and future cop with a six figure salary and she isn't and therefore she's never getting the dog, after which MM reamed out defendant for his lack of character. Defendant was actually apologetic and admitted he was an immature asshole, but MM was having none of it, telling him he was only contrite because she embarrassed him on national television. The not-crying crying was weird, especially when MM announced the verdict and the plaintiff dissolved into alleged sobs without a single tear shed. Perhaps she has blocked tear ducts or has had her lacrimal glands removed....I mean, I have terrible dry eyes and I can put on the water works at the slightest emotion. 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: Along with all the normal problems of putting on a wedding, there's news that they couldn't get a license because groom still legally married to soon to be ex. Defendant still going through with the wedding reception, knew about the soon to be ex wife but divorce decree has stalled, plans to straighten that out later... What's a hoot is as of the taping, she still couldn't get married because the divorce still hasn't happened. Talk about living in the dreamland of wedding planning. If she were younger, I would have thought she was in a rush to get married because she was pregnant or something. (And at that age why are you getting a white dress with rhinestones, anyway?) So what's the hysteria that it was the worst day of her life because of the dress--shouldn't it be because even if she'd worn Princess Di's wedding gown, she could not get married that day! I couldn't stop staring at MM's hair color. Might be just me. Edited December 30, 2017 by meowmommy 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 30, 2017 Share December 30, 2017 21 hours ago, SRTouch said: they stole my dog: Finally had time to watch this. What a bunch of unlikeable people, especially the narrow little Marine with the super-douchebag hairdo. Yeah, sure - like anyone would pay him 120K for anything. HIs "I'm sorry that I'm such an idiotic stupid asshole" carried no weight. Someone is going to let him be a cop? The only person who was tolerable was his tatted-up g/f, who confessed she hadn't realized her Romeo was so mean. I just hope that poor little dog - who got shoved into a room because these harridans got a new, shiny dog - has a good home with her family. Plaintiff seemed more than a little nutty and unstable. She gets knocked up while living with Nanny, goes off with new man-bunned b/f and between them they can't afford a place to live. How the hell she thought she could care for a dog, I don't know. I had to cut short the Hall Sobbing. 18 hours ago, meowmommy said: The not-crying crying was weird We see that all the time - litigants trying to buy sympathy with fake crocodile non-tears. It never works, so STFU with that. It just makes you look more ridiculous than you are already. I think she has a lot more problems than losing this poor dog, even though she took him to get his nails cut and he was her LIFE! 21 hours ago, SRTouch said: wedding seamstress case: Good lord! These people aren't really planners, are they? My husband was still married when we got together, but - call us overly-cautious - for some reason we decided to wait until the divorce was final before planning our wedding. Worked out much better that way and he didn't have to stand on the church steps to explain to the guests the "uncircumstances" for no wedding after all. Even I, while not a being a great planner myself, also didn't wait until a half-hour before our ceremony to get my dress. I know I'm really out of the loop, but is it now commonplace for grandmas to have splashy Lady Di weddings and wear a white dress (which clashed a bit with the massive arm tats)? I'm not being nasty - I really don't know. Maybe it is! Plaintiff was kind of funny in her gnarly pig-tailed wig, declaring that she only got there half an hour after the wedding was to start, and not 45 minutes after. Good thing she carries around a lot of safety pins for her clients who are bustin' out of their gowns. The yelling over JM, the dagger nails that always make me queasy, the fractured English: I couldn't finish this one. 4 Link to comment
aemom December 30, 2017 Share December 30, 2017 22 hours ago, SRTouch said: ok, my provider had a hiccup and I saw the same show two days in a row--- recap I posted yesterday was supposed to be shown today... and unless I'm totally discombobulated, this is a NEW EPISODE they stole my dog: ok, what I'm seeing, and what you may or not be seeing tomorrow... plaintiff all broken up because defendant, her cousin, has her dog and won't give poor Noodle back. Hmmm, first impression of plaintiff not all that favorable... can't hardly talk, all broken up - MM has to warn her to pull it together and present her case - but I'm not seeing actual tears, not even watery eyes, through her glasses - though she does rub her eyes and Doug gives her a tissue when she gets outside. I actually started reading SRTouch's recap and stopped when I realized that I hadn't seen the episode yet. So I watched the plaintiff very carefully and I did see actual tears when she was in the hallway with Doug. GF looked very embarrassed by the texts of her vindictive asshole marine boyfriend and I wonder if she had enough brains to cut bait and run after that. If he'll treat family that way, what will he do to you if you displease him? His vindictiveness doesn't appear to have any bounds. The dressmaker looked as if she rolled out of bed and came to court. She clearly sews as well as she maintains her appearance. Those dresses were a mess and I'm glad the defendant won. 4 Link to comment
aemom December 30, 2017 Share December 30, 2017 36 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: I know I'm really out of the loop, but is it now commonplace for grandmas to have splashy Lady Di weddings and wear a white dress (which clashed a bit with the massive arm tats)? I'm not being nasty - I really don't know. Maybe it is! These days it's not frowned on to wear white for subsequent weddings, but I suspect that you and I are more modest in our clothing choices and would choose a more subdued white dress that wouldn't flash our lacy black bra at the armholes. Actually I suspect that we would ensure that all our undergarments remained UNDER our dress. 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 31, 2017 Share December 31, 2017 1 hour ago, AEMom said: GF looked very embarrassed by the texts of her vindictive asshole marine boyfriend and I wonder if she had enough brains to cut bait and run after that. That would be nice, but considering the kinds of things women on these shows tolerate in order to keep evem the worst examples of male humanity around, I don't have high hopes. One of them on JJ stayed with HER man even after he knocked out all her front teeth. True, she stayed with him for only four more months, but still... 5 Link to comment
aemom December 31, 2017 Share December 31, 2017 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: That would be nice, but considering the kinds of things women on these shows tolerate in order to keep evem the worst examples of male humanity around, I don't have high hopes. One of them on JJ stayed with HER man even after he knocked out all her front teeth. True, she stayed with him for only four more months, but still... All I can say to that is: Unbelievable! 3 Link to comment
SRTouch January 1, 2018 Share January 1, 2018 (edited) originally aired September 26, with discussion starting back around pg 81. Nothing special, unless you like watching people admit how stupid they are in front of a national audience... ok, yeah that's fun sometimes, but these three are yawners. I see from the old comments I pled "I'm busy!" and only recapped 1 case and @AngelaHunter stepped in on the others No fool like an old fool: this case has it all, an old dude who must be losing it, a tenant with abusive bf, bail money loan, engagement ring, abusive drunk bringing new gf to court... oh, and the one at the root of it all, the tenant who asked dumbass old dude for the bail money for abusive bf and still has the ring ex bf bought with old dude's money.... well, seems she STILL lives in old dude's house and was too sick to appear today. The thing that really got me about this, is that the defendant brought his new gf to court, she sat there and listened to the testimony, then walks out and tells Doug that she's standing by her man. Dude suing stepdaughter: ah well, skipped this one for the second time. Seems plaintiff loaned stepdaughter money. She admits he loaned the money - says she was paying it back. Step daddy has kerfuffle with greasy bf. She says he tried to change the repayment plan to more than she could pay, she stopped paying and cut ties. She claims this suit is really to pressure her to choose to dump bf and resume relationship with stepdaddy. Oh, and she claims stepdaddy was abusive when she was younger. Hmmmm, maybe so, girl seems awful mousey and I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't something in her past. Bf is in court, doesn't say anything but I get the impression he may be a controlling AHole - in one shot where camera swings to him as she's testifying I can almost see him mouthing the words they practiced together. Stepdaddy... bad vibes from him.... and where the hell is mom!?! Whole case is a downer, they refer to plaintiff as defendant's "former" step father, so maybe mom dumped him (or maybe she died)... I didn't watch enough to know. Zipped through after 1st commercial... no surprise, defendant admitted she owed money, she has to pay it back... Apparently some dispute about the amount, as she only has to pay about half what stepdaddy sued for... not worth going back to figure out why. AS-IS rust bucket sale: same old deal, plaintiff bought 18yo rust bucket without a test drive, and is shocked and appalled that the stranger who unloaded it won't give him his money back. I actually watched this time, but really nothing much to write about. Actually, both these litigants sound pretty clueless. Defendant bought the junker for a niece to take to college - says he buys cars for nieces and nephews all the time - wonder why none of my uncles bought me clunkers... He did a few repairs to get it running, but niece didn't want the '99 Chevy for some odd reason... so maybe niece was the only one with a working brain cell... So.... he turns around and puts it back up on CL. Hmmm, supposed to be something of a mechanic himself, but says he bought the car with problems and fixed what he found wrong. Ok, defendant may be crooked instead of clueless. Plaintiff looks at this gem of a car, rides around as a passenger but doesn't even drive it much less have it checked by a mechanic... after all, defendant has always been such an honest guy since they met a few minutes ago, and even dropped the price. Hmmm, who believes reason why defendant wouldn't let plaintiff drive was because he wasn't sure his insurance would cover him - even though buyer would have been driving with seller sitting next to him in the car. After paying and taking possession, plaintiff says clunker quit on him. Actually says he put gas in it, gas started leaking, so he went grocery shopping instead of turning around and taking it back to seller. So, he's at the grocery store, gas leaking, goes in and shops, comes out and it won't start. Next day he gets it towed to a mechanic. Huh, he left it there leaking gas overnight! When mechanic checks it out, all KINDS of problems, report ends saying thing is structurely unsafe. Ah, but none of the stuff listed is the stuff defendant says he fixed. Story has the normal ending, even the expected "WOW" from plaintiff when MM rules, and the whining to Doug about how MM wouldn't listen to his case or allow him to present his evidence. Edited January 1, 2018 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
SRTouch January 2, 2018 Share January 2, 2018 (edited) originally aired October 6 - a day where I was once again busy and late with the recap. Cases sort of unusual, not great but not run of the mill tenant/bail/brawling in the street... so I watched instead of just recapping the recap. Oh, comments back around pg 83... how the big boys play: this one is about two guys who play in an adult soccer league. Apparently, defendant didn't like how plaintiff was playing, so he decided he's going to teach punk a lesson and creams him when he gets the chance. Ah, he did too good a job, plaintiff ended up needing surgery. Defendant got caught by officials, red carded and booted from the game and was suspended from league play for a couple games. But, that wasn't enough for plaintiff, he files assault charges (case dropped by DA) and is here in court wanting defendant to pay. Oh dear, I started out thinking plaintiff didn't have a case, that it one of those times where he assumed the risk of getting hurt by engaging in a sport where, even though not contact like football or rugby, players do sometimes get hurt - both during legal and illegal play. Normally, I'd say it's the game and league officials place to decide the punishment.... ah, but this defendant is SUCH AN ARROGANT A$$HOLE! Even in court, he's snickering about how plaintiff was hurt, and put in his pre-hearing answer to the complaint that plaintiff was crying like a little girl - oh, wait, not like a little girl, he says his niece was hurt in the same way, and plaintiff was making a bigger deal of his injury than she did. We have a little show and tell, with both sides using Douglas as a tackle dummy. End result, plaintiff wins... is awarded $6,000 so they have a higher maximum than the norm. Defendant offers a backhanded apology (to Doug, not the plaintiff) an AHole to the end, then tries to head in the wrong direction when he leaves hallterview - always good for a chuckle. best dressed trucker: plaintiff isn't one of those truckers wearing dirty overalls and wife beater shirts, he not only dresses well for court, he had quite the collection of name brand dress shirts. He saw someone who had monogrammed their dress shirt sleeves, thought that was kind of cool, and took 26 of his best shirts to defendant to have it done. Problem is, they didn't put anything in writing, and instead of putting it on the sleeve, defendant put it on the shirt pocket like a bowling league shirt. Plaintiff seeking $1700, but doesn't really have any evidence of what the shirts cost new, much less what they were worth when defendant messed up. Unlikeable defendant denies everything, and is relying on there being nothing in writing so no clear meeting of the minds. Nope, don't believe him - defendant brought nice dress shirts in, and kind of hard to believe he didn't say he wanted sleeve monogramed. As the professional in this screw up, defendant really should have insisted an getting it in writing... not only location, but color, font, font size - all kinds of different choices that should have been settled before working on the first shirt. Luckily, MM knows a thing or two, recognises the brands and is willing to accept evidence prices of new shirts plaintiff provides... so it's just a question of how much she depreciates them since dude admits they were NOT new. Case could have gone either way, but sort of hinges on the professional not getting needed info which he should have insisted on getting... oh, and plaintiff is likeable and believable and defendant - not so much. Not enough for a criminal case, but here MM believes plaintiff, doesn't believe defendant, and awards a grand to plaintiff. bad paint job: plaintiff's new car is messed up, her insurance pays defendant's shop to paint it, but shop does such a poor job she wants the money back, plus a little extra. Case is one of those where it seems plaintiff is nit picking and trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. She even apparently tried to make this a criminal case, going to her DA after her BBB complaint was dismissed. Really, one if those times where defendant helps plaintiff win. He's here with no first hand knowledge of what was done, and none of the workers who worked on her vehicle as witnesses. She has video and pictures of what was done, and before it's over he admits a shoddy job was done, and even that some of her complaints are justified. Ah, but this lady is after a bonanza, and tries to convince us that she took her Toyota to several other shops and none would give her a written estimate on what it would cost to make things right. Rough justice - shop did a piss poor job, not worth the 3 grand insurance payment... plaintiff overreaching, asking for $5200 and change. MM decides she deserves a $1000 refund for the crappy paint job. Edited January 2, 2018 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
TresGatos January 2, 2018 Share January 2, 2018 On 12/27/2017 at 1:59 PM, SRTouch said: pit vs shih tzu: I see from the recap that I just watched the intro and the rough justice portion, but this is one of the worst of the clueless owners I can remember. Watched even less this time. Seems plaintiff was walking her little dog, saw the pit following them and put her little dog on top of a car. Pit got her dog anyway. Pit's owner has a multiple defenses, some laughable - some plain infuriating. Laughable defense #1, dude argues no way can his 1 foot tall dog jump the 4ft fence... uh dude, most dogs are natural athletes. My brother had a pitty pup dumped in his yard. When it grew up it could hop over a six foot fence as easily as I go up a step. As a kid I had a german Shepard that could clear an 8 foot wall with a running start. 'Nother silly defense, he tries to argue there were no witnesses... uh guess he means no independent witness, but MM lands on him with both feet, pointing out that the plaintiff is all the witness needed. Besides, she notes, defendant is his own worse witness... he admits his dog got out - somehow - and plaintiff's dog was mauled (he says at one point she exaggerated the injuries, but plaintiff has the vet records in court) - STRICT LIABILITY, DUMBASS!!! Oops, now we getting to the infuriating part.... enough, suffice it to say that this idiot has 3-4 pit bulls (according to plaintiff's opening statement) in a yard with a 4 foot fence, one got out and mauled another animal, and idiot is in court arguing about liability... worst part is he's too dense to realise the yard is insecure, so same thing could happen again... even worse, all his dogs could get out and hunt down a human - he'll be shocked and wonder who let them out, and the media will have another horror story about the breed because of the owner not having a working brain cells in his head. I had to turn away for most of this but I did catch the infuriating halterview where the Plaintiff said officials had urged her to open a vicious dog investigation but she refused because of what she had gone through with her dog and how she would never want to separate dogs from their owners. Well some dogs need to be separated from their owners! If the next time those pitbulls kill a child, or an old lady, or a jogger what will her responsibility be for not making a report after she witnessed these animals killing her dog? 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 2, 2018 Share January 2, 2018 2 hours ago, TresGatos said: If the next time those pitbulls kill a child, or an old lady, I know JM goes off on that a lot, but trust me - dogs can instantly tell the difference between an old lady(or even a young lady!)/ human child, and another dog. Sicko men in olden times specifically bred them to be aggressive to other dogs and modern day idiots create problems. I didn't see this ep, but I assume the "pit" didn't attack the little dog's owner or another human being? Hey, I've adopted intact tomcats who would rip another male cat to pieces but were sweet as pie with me. They knew I wasn't a tomcat. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch January 3, 2018 Share January 3, 2018 rerun from October 12, comments around pg 84... not exactly exciting cases, but some staples of court tv... and truth be known - better that these cases are aired for our entertainment than clog the regular courts CDL trucker hired off craigslist: this defendant waits til the hallterview to admit he knew he was going to lose, but he dragged this out cuz he was PO'ed at the plaintiff. Plaintiff has a commercial drivers license, but has to find his employment opportunities through CL... maybe because GPS and cell phones are beyond him. Everybody agrees he worked for defendant for two weeks, everybody agrees he wasn't paid... the case came about because nobody agrees on how much he was supposed to be making. Case ends when MM announces she fed up with both sides and rules. I figure she ruled for plaintiff because she was steamed at defendant and his attitude more than at inept plaintiff. tenant/landlord nonsense: another case not worth the time or effort it would take for a real bailiff to swear them in for a real small claims judge.... ah, and this one brings in another court TV staple - litigants who are almost impossible to understand. These two are so caught up in their feuding and fussing that they can't remember WTH they just accused the other side of from one minute to the next. All this nonsense, which has been going on for over a year and a half, and it's a month to month rental. Today tenant is looking to get thousands of dollars in storage fees for a washer/dryer left by a previous tenant when there was never an agreement for storage, and in fact defendant claims he sent guys to pick up but plaintiff refused to give them access. Oh, and not to forget, tenant claims trespassers could come and go though his things all these months because basement couldn't be secured... why they even stole his passport - no wait, he found it later so they must have brought it back. Anyway, plaintiff must like courtrooms, there's this case, Housing Authority court, and pending eviction case... and all over a month to month rental. car shop case: yet another court TV staple... old guy can't accept that it may be time to retire his mint 20yo Volvo. Definitely doesn't help plaintiff's case that he can't remember what happened when... and this is a time when defendant actually has evidence - in the form of dated work orders which contradicts plaintiff's testimony. Not that I think much of defendant, as it sure sounds like he was taking advantage of old guy. I mean, there comes a time when a good mechanic should tell the customer there's too much wrong to keep putting on bandaides.... but, no, this defendant is happy to keep taking money and replacing parts even though he knows the bits and pieces he's replacing are not going to turn back the clock. Heck, this joker was replacing parts just because plaintiff wanted them replaced, even though he, as the mechanic, didn't think they needed to be replaced. Sometimes a customer has a great sentimental attachment and is going to say fix it anyway, but in my view, a reputable mechanic is going to give the customer a heads up. I went through that with my 20yo Ranger, it was getting to the point where is it was becoming a restoration project rather than a daily driver. My mechanic told me he was willing to keep taking my money, but without major work its days as reliable transportation were over. I bought a reliable car, but it still took away before I let the Ranger go. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch January 4, 2018 Share January 4, 2018 (edited) okay, today's rerun is also back on pg 84, originally aired October 9 Phone dropped/smashed and or stomped: time to hit a couple of those court TV staples that were missed yesterday. First case today has 5 rowdy 19-21 year old snowflakes drunk, driving, brawling about who is sober enough to drive, lost on the freeway, fighting on the side of the road in the rain, busted up phone, wigs floating in puddles.... ah, a glorious time had by all. Plaintiff was 1 of the girls who had her wig snatched off and it was her phone that was either dropped or thrown down and danced on depending on who is talking. She figures it's bo-NAN-zap time, she not only wants the cost of the old phone, she also wants defendant to buy her the latest phone with all the bells and whistles - oh, and might as well pay for every penny she spent on the trip, since she had a lousy time and came home early. Don't believe much of her story - but she seems proud to admit she ditched defendant and his gf on the side of the freeway.... which MM points out is to taking off in defendant's rental without his permission - grand theft auto! Anyway, no mind boggling legal case, just drunk kids going wild and now acting like spoiled brats in court... are these kids or young adults? Only bright spot is defendant not trying to dodge responsibility, he admits he was driving drunk and says they were all acting like fools, but yeah, when fight started he was holding her phone... aw, then he spoils it, posting on social media that he's a habitual drunk driver and has been doing it for years. Anyway, he was willing to pay for the phone, but no way is he giving her over 3 grand. MM agrees, he has to pay $750 for the phone - but nothing else. Ah, and the countersuit. Remember the stolen rental and ditching defendant and his gf on the side of the road... that's gonna cost her $50 cuz he had to pay for a ride back to the BnB. So net award to plaintiff for 700 bucks - no bonanza... oh, and when little miss plaintiff stripper ho (plaintiff admits she's a stripper, and defendant posted she's a stripper ho) drove off, she took his $300 scarf and won't give it back - collateral she says... MM says she only gets the $700 if she returns the scarf undamaged. rental kerfuffle: nothing special here. Plaintiff rents a trailer double wide trailer for a grand a month, lives there for awhile then moves out without giving notice - says he didn't need to give notice since the written lease is a month to month agreement - uh, no, you still need to give notice everywhere but in the 5 Burroughs of NY. So, then landlady gets greedy, she keeps the whole $1500 deposit even though he only owes a grand for a month of rent. She claims he damaged the skirting, but pictures show old skirting which needs to be replaced. Oh, he made unauthorised changes, except that they exchanged texts where he discussed the changes before he did them... oh, and he wants to be paid for doing them even though none of the texts mention any payment. Ah, but looks here at this carpet stain! Yes, sure 'nuf a stain, but no 'before' picture and he claims it was there when he moved in. He won that point, but then interrupts to show a picture without a stain - just not of the same area... uh, did I forget to mention plaintiff may be hung over and had a taste before court. Oh, and he says part of the reason he didn't get along with landlady is that her bf is a drunk. And... only snicker of the case is that his papers claim landlady is crazy cuz she's menopausal and MM asks if he knew when he wrote that that the judge might just be a woman. Like I said way back, no big legal issue, case ok, but ran 5 minutes long and could have been cut 5 minutes short. Plaintiff gets back the deposit minus the month rent he owes. classic car kerfuffle: not just classic in the sense that this case deals with a '67 camaro, but it's a classic court TV case about nothing. Plaintiff is complaining that defendant charged more than the original estimate. Problem seems to be he only skimmed the computer generated work order. Several change orders were made, and each time the software listed the amount of the original work, then the new price. Dude wasn't charged both prices, just the new amount. In fact, silly plaintiff not only didn't read the work orders, he didn't keep track of what he paid... defendant says he paid more than he's claimjng. So, plaintiff has no case - maybe he would have if he just knew what he paid for what, but here he just looks silly. (Uh, could it be he filed the case when wife, who came to court today, had a fit when she learned how much money he was putting into the car to get it ready to drag, and no way was she letting go him relive his youth. Ah, I get it, I was never a racer, more into off roading. Sometimes I look out at my little SUV and think... hmmmmm I could put a winch on that little Tucson, some aggressive tires, and do a little mudding...) Then there's a countersuit... also, no case, just filed because defendant was pissed he was being sued, so he decided not to honor the original deal and charge full price (claims usual rate is $65 an hour, dropped to $40 when work was done, but once sued price goes back to 65). Case is a wash, all anyone gets is the free lunch. Edited January 4, 2018 by SRTouch 1 Link to comment
DoctorK January 4, 2018 Share January 4, 2018 Quote claims usual rate is $65 an hour, dropped to $40 when work was done, but once sued price goes back to 65). Still bothered by this the second time around. After the plaintiff bitched and moaned so much about the final price, the defendant cut his labor costs by over 30% to get rid of the defendant. To me, that was a settlement. When the plaintiff sued him anyway, that breached the settlement so it is proper that terms of the settlement (i.e., the reduced labor costs) are cancelled; certainly we have heard cases decided that way in the past. However, after the plaintiff reneged on the settlement and (based on his own laziness and/or ignorance) accused the defendant of fraud in court, I think the defendant wasn't too broken up about not winning his countersuit, just happy to be done with the plaintiff. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch January 4, 2018 Share January 4, 2018 1 hour ago, DoctorK said: Still bothered by this the second time around. After the plaintiff bitched and moaned so much about the final price, the defendant cut his labor costs by over 30% to get rid of the defendant. To me, that was a settlement. When the plaintiff sued him anyway, that breached the settlement so it is proper that terms of the settlement (i.e., the reduced labor costs) are cancelled; certainly we have heard cases decided that way in the past. However, after the plaintiff reneged on the settlement and (based on his own laziness and/or ignorance) accused the defendant of fraud in court, I think the defendant wasn't too broken up about not winning his countersuit, just happy to be done with the plaintiff. Absolutely - also gets me when someone offers to settle, the offer is refused, but then the judge accepts the offer on behalf of the litigant who refused. Hey, I can see offering you money to just go away, (while not agreeing I owe anything) you not only didn't go away but sued me anyway.... hey, negotiation over, offer withdrawn, go pound sand! 3 Link to comment
TresGatos January 4, 2018 Share January 4, 2018 (edited) On 1/2/2018 at 5:37 PM, AngelaHunter said: I know JM goes off on that a lot, but trust me - dogs can instantly tell the difference between an old lady(or even a young lady!)/ human child, and another dog. Sicko men in olden times specifically bred them to be aggressive to other dogs and modern day idiots create problems. I didn't see this ep, but I assume the "pit" didn't attack the little dog's owner or another human being? Hey, I've adopted intact tomcats who would rip another male cat to pieces but were sweet as pie with me. They knew I wasn't a tomcat. We had a friend whose tomcat had to be put down after he mauled an 87-year-old man. I would never trust pitbulls (or any dog) who have mauled to death a small animal not to maul to death a small human, particularly ones with neglectful owners. For a dog to have killed other animals before attacking a human is not at all unheard of. The woman in this case, in my strongest opinion, should have followed up with a vicious dog report. Edited to add: Even if the pitbulls didn't ever kill a person and "just" killed another person's beloved pet it's still awful and a report should have been filed. The woman knows how it feels when a pet she claims to have loved was killed. Why would she ever want someone else to go through that? Edited January 4, 2018 by TresGatos Wsited To Add 4 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.