The People's Court - General Discussion

[aemom]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

A  little Boxing Day Special: If anyone here, like me, never saw the full case of "Benedict" the arrogant, pompous asshole lawyer (the best kind, who doesn't know he needs evidence or feels he's too important to get documents signed ) we have it here for your viewing pleasure:

 

Thank you @AngelaHunter. I've never been able to see the whole case, so this was a real treat. What an asshole!

[CrazyInAlabama]

Thanks for posting that.    It certainly is a classic.   

 

Benedict has only one review on a legal client review site, 1 star.    He's also part of a monastery, and is their immigration attorney, in the same town as his practice is Abiquiu, NM.

I was hoping Douglas was going to beat the snot out of the defendant jerk.  

[AngelaHunter]

9 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Benedict has only one review on a legal client review site, 1 star. 

One review, but it's a goodie:

https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/87510-nm-benedict-mccaffree-958195.html

[Brattinella]

Wowie what a craphead!  nvm

Edited December 26, 2018 by Brattinella

[AngelaHunter]

42 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

Wowie what a craphead! 

*Adds "craphead" to growing list of descriptions of litigants, right above "Janky"*

Thanks, Brattinella!

[CrazyInAlabama]

The amazing thing about Googling the 'attorney' is he's apparently an ordained priest, and the attorney for the religious order too.

 

They're having the rerun of the woman who financed her friend's trip to the tune of $600, and then the lender wanted to borrow the defendant's kid's prom dress.    The defendant is apparently a world champion eye roller, because she's rolling her eyes so hard I'm really waiting for them to pop out, and chase Douglas around the courtroom.   I think this entire case was to get publicity for the defendant (she's the one who lost 170 lbs, and the judge has to show the picture, and rave about how good she looks), and I bet these two heifers took the award money the plaintiff received, and went on another trip together.   It was funny they all were wearing coordinating pink tops. 

The other rerun is the former roommates/lovers who were shacking up, and then she goes to the Dominican Republic, meets some guy on her girls' weekend, married some guy, and pretty much did it to get him in the country.    Admitting that on camera, but then saying it's true love is a bad idea, and I hope the immigration people are watching.  

Edited January 3, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Admitting that on camera, but then saying it's true love is a bad idea

Even on rewatch, I remained dazzled and bemused that these two, who are repugnant in every way possible, are cheating all over the place. Well, I mean I get the Dominican Republic huge, rapturous love affair - after all, what guy wouldn't fall head over heels for this miserable, nasty, sour-faced, gigantic heffalump? Oh, JM, are you really that naive? And him? There are women who desperately wanted him body and soul and craved his seed? Holy shit. Truth really is stranger than fiction.

[AngelaHunter]

Reruns, but I didn't remember the one where girl was suing her father for stealing 4,000$ from her student loans. Finding out he's not her biological father was hardly earth-shattering, but anyway - Judge M, I love you dearly but you need to stop playing family counsellor and giving people motivations they never had. You are not qualified for that job. All families are not like yours! Dad/not-Dad, when asked why he stole all her money from the account, "It's my money! It's mine! I gave her a computer and spent money on her (when she was a minor) so it's MINE!"  Even after he so kindly confides that the girl was only born because her druggie mother screwed some addict, JM says, "I'm sure you only took her 4,000$ because you were worried and concerned she might blow it on stupid things. You did it out of love, right?"  Cuz that's what she would do with her daughter, who is a 21-year old woman and apparently treated like a 12-year old. WTF, JM?? He stole money. He's a thief.

Dad: "*mumble mumble* Uhh, umm, err, Yeah, okay. I guess."  Daughter rolls her eyes and shakes her head at this utter bullshit. Anyway, money came from the government with the girl's name on it, so he has to give it all back.

JM did the same for the battling twins, 59-year old women feuding, pushing, scratching and biting each other like wild animals, lecturing them on how important and dear siblings are. Whatever. It was kind of interesting how def. sister, who is so disabled she could not even stand during the case, was able to walk perfectly well to launch such an "assaut" on her beloved sister, who seemed to find something amusing about this sordid tale. Ugh.

[SRTouch]

Well, looks like new episodes about the same old stories. 

1. MM asks, are you a gigolo? turned it on 15 minutes in and caught judge asking the question - and didn't rewind to catch beginning . Another case of desperate woman throwing money at some loser hoping to buy love. Loser doesn't deny she spent money on him, but says it was always a gift. Unfortunately, woman has nada to show loser was supposed to repay anything. Technically she wins because MM tries hard to give her something, but she only gets $200 out of the over $4000 she sued for. Loser dude has some nonsense countersuit about P giving him bedbugs, but has zip for evidence, unless I missed it, and MM just tosses the counterclaim.
2. exes battling over insurance settlement check for totaled car: intro for this one sounds interesting. Seems P drove the car, but registration and insurance was in D's name. When they broke up (prior to accident) he gave her the title and says she was too lazy to transfer everything into her name. She claims she was giving him money for the insurance, so she should get the settlement check. He says, nope, car still legally his when it was totaled while parked in the wee hours of the morning, check issued to him, it's his money. Once testimony starts I quickly lose interest. Sounds like she was the primary driver since 2016 when he bought the car for her, but nothing was ever in her name. Her story is that he signed over the title and agreed to leave things in his name until time to renew registration - he says no, she was just lazy... Not sure, maybe she's telling it like it was - maybe a little insurance fraud (didn't hear that she was listed as a driver on the policy). Not sure about his story, either - something about how he gave her the car as a gift as she needed transportation from her new home to their shared Airbnd venture being run out of his house. Says he kept telling her to get car out of his nsme, but sounds like that would have resulted in higher insurance premiums than she wanted to pay... ok, months go by with registration not being transfered, and then some driver falls asleep at the wheel and hits/totals the parked car. So.... legally it's his car, but she's always been the primary driver and he admits he signed over the title months before, but she never followed through.... ok, I'm getting a headache trying to make sense of these two with their accents, and it doesn't help that neither seems to finish a sentence before starting off in another direction. Uh oh, now mention is made of domestic abuse and cops being called - seems there's a lot more we'really not hearing, but thankfully time's up and MM is handing out her decision - even though P keeps yakking as MM is ruling. P gets the money for the insurance check, $1800, but nothing for money she put into the car or the horrible stress and aggravation she went through after the D gave her a car and let her keep and drive it even after the break up.
3. huh? Not sure WTH to call this one: apparently P hired D to spruce up his house's curb appeal because he was putting it on the market. Not clear from his intro what - if anything - she did, but sounds like he's claiming whatever she did delayed the sale, and he's suing for potential loss revenue caused by the delay. D doesn't deny she backed out of the deal, but says it's not her fault sale was delayed and she's not responsible. Only question in my mind is did P pay D anything, and did she do any work to earn the money. Unless she made some guarantee that the house would sell in a certain time period I can't see her owing anything - certainly not some amount to he is pulling out of thin air on lost potential profit. Once testimony begins things are a little clearer - but still don't see a case. Property in question is a house which P owns, but was renting out. D is full time realtor who stages properties on the side. For $2500 she was going to stage the place, bringing in furniture and knick-knacks to make the place looks lived in after P's tenants moved out, and he was to pay her daughter and additional 16 grand for the painting, landscaped, etc. Course she hoped to get the listing, but nope - and apparently she was expected to do the work without any deposit.... so.... P paid nothing, yet expects to be awarded the max in lost potential income (7 grand in their jurisdiction) because - why?... ok, bad on D if she really backed out the day before daughter and hubby were to start work (when D bailed daughter bailed too) - but really, 7 grand because she changed her mind and backed out before ever receiving a penny? Maybe, if, like I said, there was a contract with some guarantee, but there's nothing here. Appears he's hanging his hat on fact that she advised him he needed his tenant to love out so place could be painted, landscaped and staged - and place sat empty for months - he wants her to pay the lost rent income.... uh.... no.... not sure what MM is going to find to talk about for next 8 minutes - I've been waiting for something to sound like P has a case since the intro and haven't heard it yet - and I kept listening 'til the bitter end and never heard a case. Ah, but turns out he wins - but only because MM thinks it was terribly unprofessional of D to bail on the job the day before work was to start. So, he gets $1 (yes one dollar) - so, $6,999 less than he asked for.

Edited January 7, 2019 by SRTouch

[zillabreeze]

Case #1.  Did anyone think to look for the bedbugs & other vermin under that nasty wad of used gum on P's head?

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, zillabreeze said:

Case #1.  Did anyone think to look for the bedbugs & other vermin under that nasty wad of used gum on P's head?

Was that gum? I thought it was a flattened out leftover slab of cotton candy.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Another case of desperate woman throwing money at some loser hoping to buy love.

This "home health aide"(of course she is) moves to the top of the list of "Most Sad, Pathetic Desperate Women Ever" just under "Women who stand by their man even after he knocks their teeth out". She was doing who knows what with her repulsive "something", ( I guess JM didn't hear the new term for this: "Dealing")an incoherent, squinting, grinning creep who thinks he's Stud of the Year (and why not, when he can get needy fools like plaintiff to bankroll him?) Plaintiff's house is in foreclosure, so she does what I'm sure we all would do: Starts throwing tons of money at Jarrell, who lives on peoples' taxes even though he appears to be able-bodied - but hey! Why pay your own way when you can get Byrd to do it? Jarrell needs a car and rent money and cable TV! Anyway, what concerns me most is the plaintiff bringing bedbugs to her helpless clients who depend on this woman who is a freaking mess and has no judgement whatsoever. It's like they both have the mentality of toddlers: "Hey, Jarrell, I got this whole bunch of money!" Jarrell: "Send it to me!" Plaintiff: "Okay, since you loooove me." Jarrell: "Woo Hoo!"

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

exes battling over insurance settlement check for totaled car:

Another one searching and trying and building up to getting insurance on a car she's driving. Personally, I feel that a middleaged person who has to pay around 2200$ a year for insurance maybe shouldn't be driving at all. I pay less than 500$. What's the deal here? Case was boring and for me, mostly incomprehensible.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

huh? Not sure WTH to call this one: apparently P hired D to spruce up his house's curb appeal

Both parties were annoying in the extreme. Plaintiff has no evidence of anything at all, yet expects to collect the max on his sayso. Def. is unbelievably unprofessional, and needs to do something about that dye-job, and I'm sure her business may not boom after her appearance here - "Oh, well, stuff happens, so I just decided to not do what I said I would do. No biggie, right?" Sounds like her daughter is of the same mindset and just decides to blow off a job.  I don't usually notice the audience at all, but in this case couldn't help but see the stupid-looking, greasy-haired grinning asshole in the sloppy tee shirt behind the plaintiff. He kept yawning hugely, his jaws gaping like a largemouth bass and he didn't even cover it with his hand. Disgusting. We don't want to see your molars and your tonsils, you shithead. I'm pretty sure JJ would have thrown him out. What a pig. 

However, I do agree with plaintiff that he was unable to find any reputable landscaper to work on his property in June. This past fall I decided for once to get a company to clean up the leaves and there was no way. By that time they were all completely booked. But, of course, plaintiff didn't feel the need to provide proof of that either.

[seacliffsal]

Today JM exposed the scam that is timeshares.  Of course, defendant believes that if she's not using it and tired of paying for half of it then she should just not pay anymore and plaintiff should pick up the slack.  Plaintiff also isn't using it and has discovered that they actually have to pay someone to "sell" (i.e. take it off of their hands) the timeshare.  JM tries several times to explain to the defendant that just because she doesn't want it anymore doesn't mean she can just stop paying her half of the fees.  Defendant also doesn't realize that it is extremely difficult to sell a timeshare for any money/profit (yes, there are some timeshares that are valuable, but many are not in high demand).  Defendant was almost willfully and stubbornly ignorant of the reality of the timeshare that she bought with her former friend.  However, JM really delivered on the information!  I had fun watching this case (well, except for the defendant's continual denial of owing her half of the money...).

Edited January 12, 2019 by seacliffsal
I, too, realized the judge was JM and not JJ; however, I did post in the correct thread even though I referenced the wrong judge (I love them both).

[CrazyInAlabama]

The timeshare case was hysterical!   Total denial, and apparently defendant thought that since she didn't go there, that the contract wasn't enforceable.    There's a big reason that there are entire companies that advertise they'll resell the timeshare for you, and are just doing it for the fees you'll pay them, and it will never sell.    The worst 'gift' you can leave your heirs is a timeshare.  

 

Yes, it was on JM, not JJ.  

Edited January 9, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Broderbits]

1 hour ago, seacliffsal said:

Today JJ exposed the scam that is timeshares.

Was this case a topic on Judge Judy today also? I watched it on Judge Millian's show.

[AngelaHunter]

56 minutes ago, seacliffsal said:

Of course, defendant believes that if she's not using it and tired of paying for half of it then she should just not pay anymore and plaintiff should pick up the slack.

Yes, of course. Her mother died eight years ago and she got married so she shouldn't have to meet her obligations!  The nerve of plaintiff! My husband and I went to a timeshare seminar on our honeymoon, on the promise of a free bottle of booze or something. After 2 hours of hard sell, we declined, but requested our booze. The presenter wasn't so friendly then and basically told us to go pound sound. So glad we made the decision not to get involved in that dumb racket. I must say how appreciative I was to hear basic English spoken properly in this case, although plaintiff was just slightly annoying with her overly-exaggerated expressions. Def was just a deadbeat making lame excuses to weasel her way out of paying.

The carwash guy: I can't believe there are so many of his type around - the Archie Bunker, meat-headed, loud, stupid, ignorant bigmouth. I hate them! His evidence that defs damaged his 16-year old vehicle (rather than a part just wore out): He has a theory! His car was perfect when he took it there and something was wrong with it later. Has to be defs fault. No, he has no evidence of any kind, never went to a garage and has no idea what happened to the old beater, but JM should trust his theory and make defs pay! His theory IS his proof. He could NOT shut up, kept yelling over JM and I was impatient that she never told him to find his "Off" button. What an asshole. He was still ranting and raving in the hall, how justice was not served because JM didn't take his suppositions as proof and blah blah blah. Douglas had to come and escort him out but he was STILL raving somewhere down the hall when defs came out.

As for defs - once again, two people come but didn't bring the person who actually did the work. "He's working," the manager says. That's always suspicious but it didn't matter here.

Levin? JM and Douglas had a chat before the start of the 2nd case. I wanted to hear what they were saying so took off my "Mute". Do I hear them talking? No I do not. What do I hear? "HE HARDLY KNEW 'ER!" Please Levin, you short-assed, fugly dirt bag - go jump off a bridge or a really high building. You are a plague to all within the sound of your screeching voice, you and your outdoor nitwits. Fuck off and die.

[Florinaldo]

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The timeshare case was hysterical!   Total denial, and apparently defendant thought that since she didn't go there, that the contract wasn't enforceable. 

I always marvel at how some people seemingly believe that the fact that their life circumstances have changed (or they simply got bored with something) somehow means they are no longer bound by their contractual or legal obligations (leases, contracts, loans, car sale, etc.) and that someone else should be left holding the bag for those.

Edited January 9, 2019 by Florinaldo

[aemom]

On 1/7/2019 at 2:18 PM, SRTouch said:

Well, looks like new episodes about the same old stories. 

1. MM asks, are you a gigolo? turned it on 15 minutes in and caught judge asking the question - and didn't rewind to catch beginning . Another case of desperate woman throwing money at some loser hoping to buy love. Loser doesn't deny she spent money on him, but says it was always a gift. Unfortunately, woman has nada to show loser was supposed to repay anything. Technically she wins because MM tries hard to give her something, but she only gets $200 out of the over $4000 she sued for. Loser dude has some nonsense countersuit about P giving him bedbugs, but has zip for evidence, unless I missed it, and MM just tosses the counterclaim.

 

God, yet another stupid woman buying the love of a man.  There is no end to these cases.  The $200 was $100 for the cable bill that he did not pay the month that she moved out when they broke up - he had been paying it up to that point and the cable was in her name.  The other $100 was for a Bluetooth speaker of hers that he broke.

 

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

The carwash guy: I can't believe there are so many of his type around - the Archie Bunker, meat-headed, loud, stupid, ignorant bigmouth. I hate them! His evidence that defs damaged his 16-year old vehicle (rather than a part just wore out): He has a theory! His car was perfect when he took it there and something was wrong with it later. Has to be defs fault. No, he has no evidence of any kind, never went to a garage and has no idea what happened to the old beater, but JM should trust his theory and make defs pay! His theory IS his proof. He could NOT shut up, kept yelling over JM and I was impatient that she never told him to find his "Off" button. What an asshole. He was still ranting and raving in the hall, how justice was not served because JM didn't take his suppositions as proof and blah blah blah. Douglas had to come and escort him out but he was STILL raving somewhere down the hall when defs came out.

As for defs - once again, two people come but didn't bring the person who actually did the work. "He's working," the manager says. That's always suspicious but it didn't matter here.

I always think that it's a bit fishy when they don't bring the person involved.  But in this case, the guy had zero proof.  It's like some plaintiffs think that if they repeat their opinion often enough and loud enough, it will win them their case.

 

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Levin? JM and Douglas had a chat before the start of the 2nd case. I wanted to hear what they were saying so took off my "Mute". Do I hear them talking? No I do not. What do I hear? "HE HARDLY KNEW 'ER!" Please Levin, you short-assed, fugly dirt bag - go jump off a bridge or a really high building. You are a plague to all within the sound of your screeching voice, you and your outdoor nitwits. Fuck off and die.

JFC, that annoyed me to no end.

 

There was the case where the woman in the black and white striped top was suing the "broker" for her money back.  I use the quotes because that guy was as sketchy as they come.  No contract, no proof of anything that he supposedly paid back.  I'm SURE he's a real broker.

 

It's too bad that the timeshare case ended the way it did.  They were friends for a long time.

Edited January 9, 2019 by AEMom
Typo

[AngelaHunter]

4 minutes ago, AEMom said:

There was the case where the woman in the black and white striped top was suing the "broker" for her money back. 

That bug-eyed little shit is a total crook, and not a very good one. He and the so-called landlord of an illegal dwelling have probably pulled this scam more than once, hoping that people will just walk away. What a creep.

[CrazyInAlabama]

There are a lot of reasons the carwash guy, and others who actually did the work don't show up in court.   Some can't leave the state without their parole officer, or bail bond person's consent, others are probably in witness protection, or on the 10 most wanted list.     

There are real reasons, I know a few people who are scared to death of flying, or would have to get a babysitter and pay them for a few days for full time care, or some other personal reason.   And maybe not everyone wants to go to Judge M's court, and potentially be yelled at.    

[KittyMom4]

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

  The worst 'gift' you can leave your heirs is a timeshare.  

LOL, my parents are leaving me theirs, it is a beautiful resort outside of Orlando, FL, I've gone with them every year for the last 6 years, I love it there. I realize I'm the minority but I hate planning vacations and worrying about the hotel and the amenities and where I'm going to eat. I am not a beach person and I don't do theme parks or any touristy attraction where there are crowds and lines so this is perfect for me. Give me my kindle, 50 spf suntan lotion, a bottle of water or a bloody Mary and I'm all set by the pool for the day!

 

15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

the Archie Bunker, meat-headed, loud, stupid, ignorant bigmouth.

That guy was another toothless blowhard who thought is mumblings, rants and theories were proof enough! "The dome light was on!" "The car was running!" "The car wouldn't start!" None of which made sense or made it the defendants' fault. 

 

12 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

There are real reasons, I know a few people who are scared to death of flying, or would have to get a babysitter and pay them for a few days for full time care, or some other personal reason.   And maybe not everyone wants to go to Judge M's court, and potentially be yelled at.   

Totally agree, I also wondered what the missing employee would have said either way. "Yea, I sprayed it with the pressure washer like I did the other 11 cars that day." Ok, well, still doesn't prove the plaintiffs "theory". I felt the manager could speak well enough on the process of cleaning an undercarriage and how it was unlikely it caused the problem with the plaintiffs 15 year old car. 

[Katy M]

41 minutes ago, GoodieGirl said:

LOL, my parents are leaving me theirs, it is a beautiful resort outside of Orlando, FL, I've gone with them every year for the last 6 years, I love it there. I realize I'm the minority but I hate planning vacations and worrying about the hotel and the amenities and where I'm going to eat. I am not a beach person and I don't do theme parks or any touristy attraction where there are crowds and lines so this is perfect for me. Give me my kindle, 50 spf suntan lotion, a bottle of water or a bloody Mary and I'm all set by the pool for the day!

I think timeshares are like most things. they work for some people, not so much others.  The important thing is to do your research, including difficulty in getting out of it, whether or not you want to vacation in the same spot every year, etc.  I like to travel to new places, so it wouldn't be for me.  Unless I got one near my parents and then I could have my own space when I visited at the same time as my sister and her kids.  It gets a tad crowded.   But, if someone has found a place they absolutely love and want to go every year, it would make sense.  Just, with all things, think before you leap.

[KittyMom4]

9 minutes ago, Katy M said:

The important thing is to do your research, including difficulty in getting out of it, whether or not you want to vacation in the same spot every year, etc

Very true, my parents timeshare is with Marriott, so there is the added benefit of getting points whenever you stay at one of their hotels anywhere that can be used to extend or add on to your timeshare vacations. My fiance and I are aware of what the annual maintenance fees are and when we compared that to planning a week long vacation at a hotel on our own, the cost was actually better on the timeshare side. The rooms at the TS have full kitchens so we are able to save money on meals, and since we don't do tourist attractions we can use uber to get us to and from the airport and the grocery store. 

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, GoodieGirl said:

Very true, my parents timeshare is with Marriott, so there is the added benefit of getting points whenever you stay at one of their hotels anywhere that can be used to extend or add on to your timeshare vacations. My fiance and I are aware of what the annual maintenance fees are and when we compared that to planning a week long vacation at a hotel on our own, the cost was actually better on the timeshare side. The rooms at the TS have full kitchens so we are able to save money on meals, and since we don't do tourist attractions we can use uber to get us to and from the airport and the grocery store. 

Yep, sounds like you've actually thought it out.... a foreign concept to 99.99999% of litigants on court teevee

Back in the day, I went four wheeling for two weeks in the same area of Colorado every year - never needed a reservation since I was camping in a National Forest, but almost always able to camp in the same spot

[zillabreeze]

So today another old bitch trying the cutesy act to rip off potential tenant.  She knew damn well CO on apt. was not active.

Stupid chick and smug dude.  OK, I love long shiny braids on black men.  I absolutely DESPISE  the dreads on top that look like worms coming out of the head.

I have taken Lyft in major cities for years.  The cars are always newish, clean, fresh.  Drivers nice & professional.  Have never taken an Uber, so no experience.  It seems to me that the Uber standards for cars & drivers are waaay lower, as they are always having trashy issues in the press.  Def was probably peeing in jars while on the job.  P deserved something for the smell.  However, not too much sympathy, I sure as hell wouldn't rent to anyone that couldn't obtain a car by traditional methods.

[SRTouch]

1. illegal apartment dispute: silly case which never should have been filed. Mommy finds perfect apartment in historic district for Special snowflake- snowflake is mid-20s and looking for his second ever apartment for him and maybe gf and 2yo baby (could it be reason mommy was apartment shopping was to get his out of her place?) - perfect apartment has multiple prospective tenants looking at place, so P and mommy hurry and put down a deposit on the apartment, even though they note multiple problems - not only do they put down the deposit, but dude gets the keys and paints the apartment before he ever moves in - a week after putting down deposit, he (and of course mommy) go back to pay first month's rent, but before paying demand a rebate for the painting job, and oh by the way, they want the multiple code violations fixed - big kerfuffle, cops called, mommy calls and reports code violations to City - City sends inspectors and DOES find 16 violations - 26yo snowflake, mommy by his side, in court wanting return of deposit plus a couple hundred for painting - even though there was never a deal to be paid for painting. MM goes surprisingly easy on landlady, D - well, not so surprising since she's a little old lady and that always pulls MM heartstrings. MM simply points out that D doesn't have the all-important Certificate of Occupancy that permits her to collect rent, and she shouldn't put ads on CL until she does - quick ruling with no real hand slap for being a slum lord/lady, no mention of how she would never be permitted to keep a security deposit when dude not only did no damage, but actually made improvement by painting (I wanted to know if City inspected the other apartment old lady was renting out) P gets back deposit and half the money he asked for for painting.... oh, and during hallterview we learn slum lady is shopping for an inspector who will pass the place even with the multiple violations - seems it's failed three times now - and when P comes out mommy tells us place is presently rented out even though there is no old lady just told us she has no C of O.
2. loan to 'friend' for car repairs: seems when they were a couple she paid (on credit) to get his truck transmission repaired - they broke up - now she wants to be repaid. Case could go either way depending on whether or not she can show something saying he was to pay her back - as a couple, his having a working vehicle benefited her - but then again if vehicle was for his exclusive use..... well, probably coming down to texts.... and from preview we learn reason he needed her to pay is because his credit stinks, and MM is going to ask silly P why she thinks no one else would loan him money... oh yeah, seems when he needed the t***** fixed neither of them had the money, he loan request was turned down because of his basement credit rating, so she put her name on the loan - so some MM lecture on credit, co-signing for no-credit bum/gigolo dude with funny hair and big watch, etc. MM crosses aisle to hear from gigolo/bum/dude wearing the gold cross - I swear he starts out trying to charm the Judge as we go to commercial with puppy dog eyes and "how are you, judge?" When she asks - twice - what's going on? (Anybody else pause the street scene with Harvey because at first glance they thought Whoopi was out there?) Ok, case ended for me right after we came back from commercial and tricky judge trips up pretty boy (at least in his eyes - and apparently P's eyes). She asks a trick question - did you tell her you were going to pay her back? Yes.... then he tries to back away from his answer and just proceeds to make himself look worse - JM, so she was just supposed to pay because you're so cute and irresistible? D (usually stands for defendant, but for rest of this case it's Dufus) answers, I think so! ... ok, not wanting to watch D continually talk around his foot in mouth - it's no fun watching MM outwit a half wit - I skip ahead... oh, yeah, when I start listening again turns out D was making monthly payments on what he now claims was a gift - zip zip - MM gets fed up, starts calling dufus a liar, awards P the money, call P a dummy and D a loser (MM, repeat after me, you are a mean, horrible person - to which dufus replies, I'm a great person)... ah, and turns out reason the bill was so high is that it was one of those CC deals where there's no interest if paid off within 6 months, but if not paid in full after those six months you REALLY pay. 
3. car rental fail: (uh-oh, need CC for these litigants with the impossible to spell names) P claims he rented his car to D for use as an Uber driver - claims car came back a stinking mess and a multitude of parking tickets - wants 5 grand. D intro claims it was a week to week verbal rental agreement, and P reported car stolen after he returned the car for no good reason - he's suing for 5 grand for lost wages, false arrest, and I don't know what all .... soon as I realised I wasn't understanding either side's testimony in what promised to be a blah case - AND that they had an extra 5 minutes from the first quick decision case - I zipped ahead.... if you stick it out, maybe you can explain how the case with a combined 10 grand suit/countersuit ended in a ruling in P's favor under $400 (I'm guessing the ticket fines)

Edited January 10, 2019 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

28 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

illegal apartment dispute: silly case which never should have been filed.

So. "I'm a 26-year old man, but I need my mommy to conduct all my business and fight for me for the apartment I stupidly painted before I even had a lease. Even though I'm too young to deal with anything myself or live on my own, I thought it was a good idea to have a baby with my girlfriend." I guess when landlady saw she was going to have to deal with Ferocious Dragon Mommy protecting her wittle baby boy, she wanted out of the deal. Does not excuse her for renting out an illegal place, nor does her statement that she was "working on it" regarding the CO.  Doug in the Hall: "Working on something is not the same as having it." Right on, Doug! That should be written on a big sign somewhere.

 

33 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

loan to 'friend' for car repairs:

Ho hum. Yet another ridiculous pathetic woman - and as JM noted, this is something a lovestruck 16-year old might do and not a 28-year old woman - who will pay or do anything to keep a "loser idiot" (thank you JM!) around. Hey, this stud has better things on which to spend his money! Keeping a sharp 'do, getting tats and buying jewelry is not cheap. He needs to keep that stuff up if he wants to keep reeling in pitiful, desperate women to foot his bills.  "That was sarcasm, you idiot!" Gee, JM sounds more like JJ all the time. I approve. The plaintiff is pretty and well-spoken. I wonder why she feels she has to pay for the company of some POS like the def? It's puzzling.

40 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

car rental fail:

Shifty, creepy slimeball def SO pissed in the car, the disgusting pig. Plaintiff needs to learn how to get it together, smarten up and make some sort of contract. Anyone handing their car over to some stranger has to understand that person is not going to be so very careful with another's property.

[SRTouch]

1. loan or gift case: P says she made her good friend over 10 grand worth of loans, and to date has received $25 in repayment. Defendant intro paints different picture. She doesn't deny P was free with her money, but according to her what P is suing for is ridiculous amount for the many times over the years P picked up the tab when they'd go out... ok, as usual my perception of case goes out window once testimony starts. What I'm hearing is that these folks were like family for past 7 or 8 years. (P works to produce tears about the apparent estrangement) P actually knew and was friends with D's husband, and that's how she met D.... although to be more correct, D's hubby is also a named defendant, but he had better things to do than show up to defend accusations that he and wife owe the good family friend over 10 grand. P testifies that for years whenever D and hubby were short, they'd ask for loans and P would step in and help out. D would make token payment, but then need more money because of the next financial crisis. Could well be true, but how much of an expectation of repayment is there as the total just goes up and up? Was there ever a time where they sat down and put something in writing about what was owed? Or maybe we're about to hear that after numerous little loans, which were never fully repaid, P made a sizeable loan (which she'll need to prove). Sounding more like the seems Defendants were leeches and P didn't mind supplementing them, but now that her finances have changed and she wants some of the money she gave away over the years. According to P they had a falling out when D and family came when they wanted help at Christmas, she was at ER,  and instead of being concerned about her health they accused her of making up a lie to get out of being there for them. Uh, if that's true good riddance, and what can she prove they owe? Ok, D turn - everything she just said is a fabrication, oh except that she is a very generous person who was free with her money over the years. She does admit hubby borrowed $1200 sometime around 2013. Says hubby stayed in contact with P, but that she - the D who actually came to court, stopped being friends with P back around 2014. Huh? I thought this was about fairly current loans, now we're learning it might be about a 5 year old loan to the D hubby who isn't even here. Ok, MM asked if wife has hubby's power of attorney, but can she offer any first hand testimony about a loan made to hubby 5 years ago. Both sides are saying hubby stayed in contact after the wife stopped talking to P, and both claim hubby made the occasional loan payment - but nobody seems to know how much was repaid when or how much is still owed - and this is all about one loan for $1200 and P is claiming she loaned 10 grand!?! Unless there's some proof of some sort hiding on P side about to come out I'm about over this one. (Later P claims she has proof - but what she shows very questionable - guess she left the real proof at home) MM tells us P kept a running tally of what was borrowed, and asks D what that's all about. D says she never asked for a dime. Says she never received a dime - but I notice she doesn't deny hubby received money, and he's also a named defendant here. Ah, but MM asks, how many times did P pick up the tab when they went out? Is it just me, or does that matter? Lots of folks never pick up their share of a tab - that doesn't mean that years later the person who DID can suddenly ask for the money... ah, but when we go back to P we hear she was regularly paying hubby's truck and insurance payments, and says she has the check stubs and the payment book to show it. Ok, again with hubby being direct recipient and him not being here to answer questions. Wifey tells us neither she nor hubby had bank accounts, so they routinely gave P cash and she'd pay some of their bills by writing a check. Huh, is this same woman who testified that she paid her household expenses with income from a rental property? And she never had a bank account? For first time since intro "divorce" is mentioned - but it seems it was D's divorce from previous husband and she was hiding assets because of marital debt from first marriage? Wow, first it was P's testimony making herself look bad, now D is sinking lower and lower as she talks. Ok, back to P, who is holding text messages she says shows D agreeing to pay her money - which, if true torpedoes pretty much everything D has been saying. Ok, we're talking printed texts, from years ago where 6 grand is mentioned.... but give me a couple minutes and I can produce the same type of "proof" that the last lotto winner promised me half the check (though I would need a minute to google his/her name). Ok, texts are a bust, but MM asks for a handwritten document - something she knows and is about to spring on us? Nah, this is a piece of paper with a bunch of numbers - dates and amounts loaned and paid - all written by P, and as far as I can tell from freezing the frame a self serving document with nary a hint that D ever agreed to any of the numbers (and as far as I can tell it could have all been written the night before at the hotel - oh, and as MM notes, all written in same ink). Nope, back to no case - yes,  D are a couple of leeches taking advantage, but from all I've heard P only able to prove hubby owes her a grand (only because D admits it is owed) - not the 5 grand being sued for and certainly not the 10 P says is owed... Geez - 5 more minutes alloted, but half that will be commercials and street yahoos... yep, P gets a grand.
2. friend stuck with trip bill: another of those cases where friends plan vacation together and end up feuding. This time, P booked the trip through a D's travel agency and paid D for the airline tickets... ah, But seems there was a problem with D's CC, and now the charges have fallen on P - she wants the $1155. D has some nonsense answer - it wasn't really her CC - no it was an employee who had some kind of in with the airline - if the payment fell though let P go after this mystery third person who apparently only D knows. From intro and preview, D owes and is either extremely dense or just refuses to accept that her little scheme to get someone else to pay for the flight fell through and she needs to step up and pay for what she agreed to pay for.... this is a hard case to watch - I keep losing focus on testimony because of D's hair/makeup/outfit... exactly what do you call that color of lipstick? Ugly eggplant?... ok, I had wrong idea from intro - nothing new there - actually, P was booking an anniversay trip to the Dominican Republic through D's agency, paid D for the tickets, but then had to pay airline a second time to actually get to go? Ok, either way, don't see how D doesn't owe a refund - actually even more so if she's running an agency, her employee screwed up, her agency was paid for tickets that could not be used - in what world would a client have to go after the agency employee to get the regund rather than the agency. I suffered through watching banana top in the Shiney wig, tight tight green pants and heels - but when we shift to eggplant lips and bicycle rim hoop earrings I hit the zip button. I tune back in around minute 38 - seems the employee (actually, D doesn't claim her as an employee but calls her an associate) tried to pay with three different CC, and transactions were coming back declined or from stolen CC. So, after third failed attempt P used her own card - and now rightfully wants the money paid to D's agency refunded. Again, we have a "business owner" coming on national tv for a case they should be trying to hush up and bury. Zip zip ah, another litigant with perfectly good damage claim who got greedy and pads the claim. No doubt P should get her money back - but as long as she's suing she adds a couple hundred to her claim because of time wasted and missed work.
3. failed tire purchase: old lady take car to tire shop for a flat - is sold a used tire - car fails safety inspection because of new/used/junk tire - wants return of $60 she paid for bad tire... wow, been years since I bought a used tire, has price really gone up that much?... D doesn't deny selling a used tire - but tire had no guarantee, and it was weeks before she came back to tire shop to complain and ask for a cash refund. Looks like another non-case. Ok, preview shows a little under the table by shop dealing to avoid taxman, but not expecting much from this. Old lady starts her story - how did she get that old and be so dumb. She had a flat, airs it up at the corner gas station and heads off to a tire shop aiming to buy a $40 used tire instead of just fixing it?!... shady tire shop guy tells her he'll sell her a new tire for only $60. My guess is dude probably sold her an old, never used, spare tire that was dry rotted, telling her it's good as new. MM asks what kind of tire was it - old lady shrugs and has no idea. Really, MM asks her questions and old lady is all over the place - don't think she's purposely lieing, but confused. I kind of buy her story, if only because I can't imagine anyone admitting to it and coming on TV over $60. Sorry grandma, but you have no case here unless tire shop lady really sticks her foot in it.... zip zip... not really interested enough to watch next ten minutes. Ok, seems tire shop lady admits tire might have been bad - but says she would have been willing to replace it with another if P had come back with the bad tire. Instead, P paid the dealer who was performing the inspection three times what used tire cost - without ever looking at "bad" tire to see if anything was wrong with it or if dealer was taking advantage. Tire shop actually gave her a store credit for the purchased "bad" tire, but P wants the money. Someone DID take advantage, but no way to tell if it was dealer or tire shop. Case dismissed.

Edited January 10, 2019 by SRTouch
Whoa, hard to type with Silly on my chest - between typos and auto-finish hardly readable

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

(P works to produce tears about the apparent estrangement)

That faucet turned on and off with the greatest of ease, too. I was trying to remember when we'd seen such a pathetic sucker here, but came up blank. Def and her hubby - neither of whom can or do have a bank account - sound like opportunistic grifters, according to plaintiff. She says she basically footed all their household bills for years because she's a total idiot, but has zero proof of this. But def claims she never got "any money put into her hand" ( a slippery kind of statement all about semantics) and only hubby did. I think def probably sent her husband to ask for the money, and told him to put the Don Juan moves on the plaintiff. I guess he has a really important job and couldn't take time off to appear here to back up his wife. Def claims she owns an income property which generates 1500$/mnth but how to do that without a bank account, at least one to put the deposit in? Sorry, plaintiff, but some people you meet who start asking for money pretty quickly, are not "like family." Give me a break. Seems she feels she needs to buy friends. And why was she out with def's husband? The whole thing is weird.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

I keep losing focus on testimony because of D's hair/makeup/outfit... exactly what do you call that color of lipstick? Ugly eggplant?...

Me too! Those big purple lips kept distracting me, as did plaintiff's fake nails. She said she has a daycare, but how on earth can someone deal with little children and babies with those long talons ending in super sharp points that could slice skin in an instant? Weapons, they are.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

failed tire purchase:

I can't imagine anyone thinking they can buy a new tire for 60$. She never looked at it, never saw any defect... whatever. Boring. Everyone wants to deal in cash, no tax and no receipts and then grouse about it.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I think a lot of the credit card and airline ticket fails are because the 'employee with discounts' is really someone at the airline getting discount tickets on their account, or buddy passes.   I understand many airlines have cracked down on the buddy passes, and the discounts too.   My guess is that who ever they were getting the tickets through got fired, or caught reselling, and they no longer get cheap tickets.

I can't believe anyone buys a used tire.     That lady who did buy one might also remember that with today's tires, you don't just replace one, or you're asking for trouble.     When I was little (a hundred years ago, when we rode dinosaurs to school), they sold recaps (old tires with replaced tread on them, I've been told that's why so many truck tires come apart in piece, but I don't know how true that is), but I haven't seen recaps talked about in years.   Where I lived until last year, they had a garage that sold new and used tires, and you should have seen the look I got out of the dealer service adviser when I kidded him that new tires cost too much, so I was going to stop by Chucky's House of Bad Tires instead of shelling out for a brand new set of tires.    Yes, I bought real, new tires. .   

Edited January 11, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Brattinella]

I confess to buying used (recaps) tires when I was young and broke.  Working at my first job, and my beater had tires that looked remarkably like racing slicks.  I think I paid 25 bucks each.  They did last a good while, though.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Being young and broke is a strong incentive.     I'm glad it worked out for you.    

[zillabreeze]

2 hours ago, Brattinella said:

I confess to buying used (recaps) tires when I was young and broke.  Working at my first job, and my beater had tires that looked remarkably like racing slicks.  I think I paid 25 bucks each.  They did last a good while, though.

Oh gosh!  So did I!  $25.00 would have been high dollar, too. 

If only I'd known the myriad of ways to get Byrd to buy rims & tires!  I was working three low paying jobs like some kind of sucker.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today, another shopping cart hit at Trader Joe's no less, and another clueless idiot who bashes someone's car, thinks it's not big deal, and then tries to play the cancer card.    The poor car owner deserved every penny of $1000.

Another squatter, with gray or black or something lipstick, who wants security deposit while she's still squatting there, because she claims there are bedbugs, and she scalded herself in the shower because she's too stupid to turn on water.       Landlady claims the ho tried to sneak her boyfriend in to live there too.    Another person who thinks some shiny bug half an inch long is a bed bug?     What an idiot, and she hasn't paid rent for over five months, and wants stress and aggravation for $1000, and her security deposit back too, while still squatting there.      I just noticed the plaintiff's earrings, they're big "W" letters, she should have had an H in the right ear, and O in the left.     Doug certainly made the plaintiff nervous didn't he?  

The contractor really was hung out to dry by his company, and I'm glad the home owner got them kicked off of Home Adviser too.     She deserved every penny, and then some.   

Edited January 11, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

59 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

another clueless idiot who bashes someone's car,

My favorite part was after the case when the idiot young lady from Ireland told Harvey that it was the car's fault because it was parked in a parking lot. How dare it!

[zillabreeze]

Question: the P in parking lot case said "the watermelon fell on the floor".  That is the ground outside.  I have never heard or used the word "floor" like that.  "Floor" is always either inside of or part of a structure.

I notice "floor" used fairly often on the court shows to describe a concrete surface outside like a sidewalk or parking lot.  Even JJ says it.  

Is this a regional thing?

Squatter case: P's name "Wonderfla"???? 😂🤣😂🤣😂

Edited January 11, 2019 by zillabreeze

[Florinaldo]

MM should really stop calling litigants "darlin' " or "sweetie". That might maintain the necessary distance between them and the bench and help prevent them from calling her "miss", which she so strongly objects to. How can she expect her warnings to stick when she falls back on a term of overfamiliarity just minutes after reminding them of what title is on the plaque in front of her, as she did today in the idiot squatter case.

 

6 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

Squatter case: P's name "Wonderfla"????

That's what I got too. Whatever it is supposed to celebrate, I am sure it's not her intellectual abilities.

 

7 hours ago, DoctorK said:

My favorite part was after the case when the idiot young lady from Ireland told Harvey that it was the car's fault because it was parked in a parking lot. How dare it!

I wondered if perhaps she got confused by the similarity between "car" and cart" as pronounced by Levin.

 

8 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I'm glad the home owner got them kicked off of Home Adviser too.     She deserved every penny, and then some.   

She should have been penalised for wearing a Morticia Addams reject with the multiple parallel slits running down the bottom of the dress. And also perhaps for being precipitous in canceling the work.

Edited January 12, 2019 by Florinaldo

[SRTouch]

3 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

Squatter case: P's name "Wonderfla"???? 😂🤣😂🤣😂

 

Ah, don't been so mean to Wonderfla... I mean it looks like the poor girl was dropped on her head or something.... no really, the way she had her hair greased down I kept looking and couldn't decide if there was a dent on her head or not

Hmmmmm, maybe if I got me a 65" smart teevee with surround sound and all the bells and whistles.... anyone know if Uncle Byrd has any spare change he needs help getting rid of...Other thing about this case - how many times did Wonderfla call her Miss before D did without being corrected? By the time D said Miss I was starting to think that had become proper 

Oh, and I agree with @Florinaldo about the homeowner canceling the job the job before the completetion date. I think MM would have penalized her and let the contractor keep the 20% mentioned in the contractor had they not told HomeAdvisor she would be getting a full refund only to stop payment on the check. Course if it came to enforcing the contract I  imagine we might have heard more about what looked like maybe trying to change the contract after she signed - wasn't clear to me if the 20% was mentioned on the original. I think MM might have let that slide she since was already planning to slam contractor for backing out of their settlement email you HomeAdvisor 

Edited January 11, 2019 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

Hated the Watermelon Witch. She had plenty of time to shop for melons and to send reams of stupid texts to plaintiff, but she had no time to stick a cheque into an envelope and send it because her husband is in Sloan-Kettering. I bet that's her go-to excuse for everything. JM is not buying your shit, you Wicked Witch. We're talking 1K here, not 5K. Shame on you, you vile hag. "How do you expect me to pick up a watermelon without using both hands?" hag asks. No one expects you to do anything except refrain from damaging the property of others.

2 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

the P in parking lot case said "the watermelon fell on the floor".  That is the ground outside.

I've noticed this with many litigants, where they refer to the outside ground/roads/lawns as "the floor".  I don't think it's regional since we hear it from litigants from all over. I've never referred to anything outside of a dwelling as a "floor" so I don't know why they say that. I did appreciate the mini-shopping cart with the itty-bitty watermelon in it. I think the staff there has a great time  with their props.

2 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

Squatter case: P's name "Wonderfla"????

Or "Wonderflee"?? I didn't catch it. But oh, my - what drama in this circus! The huffing and puffing and eye-rolling, and then finally the fake-crying thing which anyone who has ever seen this show knows carry no weight with JM and in fact only irritates her. "Are you going to cry now?" Bwahaha!  Both of them constantly called her "Miss" as well and then changed to "Judge Marilyn" after admonishment. The black/asphalt coloured lipstick! The laquered wig! The massive eyelashes! The blue fake talons! My head was spinning. Nice try with the bedbugs, Wonderfla/flea. That was some little harmless beetle and I'm glad JM recognized that this time. But all that was as overshadowed as plaintiff's eyelids by the fact that she squats for 5 months in this House of Horrors, is still there, and wants 5K.

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The contractor really was hung out to dry by his company, and I'm glad the home owner got them kicked off of Home Adviser too. 

What a creep that guy was. He knows everything, except when asked why the cheque had a stop-payment on it and then he's "Gee, I just work there. I don't know anything." I love how he claims, "WE were there and ready to start." Oh, but actually he wasn't. He called her. He says they weren't kicked off Home Advisor, well, to his knowledge they weren't. Did he think his sexiness and his sunglasses on his head would charm JM so much she'd take his utter BS as gospel? He got a second reaming from Doug in the Hall. Love you, Doug!

[Brattinella]

From watching TONS of British TV for years now, I can tell you that referring to "the floor" when it is outside, is quite common colloquially.  It always grates when I hear it, but then the glottal "t" makes me insane, too. :)

[zillabreeze]

18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

The black/asphalt coloured lipstick

She actually had nice straight teeth, but either got lipstick on them or it was reflecting, but her teeth were grey.

 

18 hours ago, Brattinella said:

From watching TONS of British TV for years now, I can tell you that referring to "the floor" when it is outside, is quite common colloquially.  It always grates when I hear it, but then the glottal "t" makes me insane, too. :)

I watch a bunch of Britcoms (it's BOUQUET!) and never noticed.  I see Ms AHunter likes spelling it "cheque".  I heartily approve, as I like the u in colour!

 

18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

But all that was as overshadowed as plaintiff's eyelids by the fact that she squats for 5 months in this House of Horrors, is still there, and wants 5K.

and she was still incensed and shocked in the hallterview at the verdict.  It truly never crossed her mind that she wasn't 100% due.  

Where does one find the entitlement hutzpah?  Perhaps I could kick back on the dole if I got the right mindset.

18 hours ago, Brattinella said:

  It always grates when I hear it, but then the glottal "t" makes me insane, too. 

I cringe with the over enunciation of the "th" in month.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, zillabreeze said:

I see Ms AHunter likes spelling it "cheque". 

Heh. I'm a Canuck and try to write it as "check" when I remember, just so's I can fit in here better.:D

 

1 hour ago, zillabreeze said:

Where does one find the entitlement hutzpah? 

I wish I knew. Even after it was explained to her over and over that she had already stolen 5K from the landlord, she really thought she should get more money. It's incomprehensible.

[zillabreeze]

13 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Heh. I'm a Canuck and try to write it as "check" when I remember, just so's I can fit in here better.:D

I love "cheque".  It looks prettier!  I'll have to remember to use it to annoy the same folks that hate my "u" in colour.

[babs j.]

I only halfway listen when I have The People's Court on so I missed floor being used instead of parking lot.  A floor is inside a building; a sidewalk, parking lot, and street are outside.

[CrazyInAlabama]

It looked like it was an enclosed porch, with a wide opening.    TJ's put a chain between the two cement posts in the opening where the cart went out, after the cart collision happened.   I totally hate these shopping cart vandals, who think they aren't responsible for anything, and whatever damage they do is the victim's problem.   

[SRTouch]

One of the funny parts with Watermelon Witch - her arguing that she wasn't so much concerned about the watermelon explosion - no she was upset about her handbag. Just how fast and hard would a shopping cart have to be going to cause a melon to explode? Anyway, just another example of a litigant only being concerned about themselves and not caring about how their irresponsible behavior impacts others.

Far as @DoctorK comment about the Irish lass - I skipped Harvey's peanut gallery and have already deleted the episode, but could it have been something lost in translation? What do Irish folks call shopping carts anyway? Trolleys, maybe? Oh well, guess Ireland has its share of halfwits just like the rest of us - 

Edited January 12, 2019 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

She actually had nice straight teeth, but either got lipstick on them or it was reflecting, but her teeth were grey.

 

With the way she was sucking in and chewing on her lips in her anguish, no doubt she got that black stuff on her teeth. Something to consider when you choose lipstick.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I skipped Harvey's peanut gallery

Really? I'm always on pins and needles, anxiously awaiting the deep and insightful comments from Levin's little Fan Club. Of course, the close ups of Levin's face is an incentive to watch and a bonus.

[Silver Raven]

If you really want to be outraged by people's feelings of entitlement, go over to reddit and look up reddit/choosingbeggars.  It's beyond just shaking your head, it's rage inducing.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Great recommendation SR.   Look at the choosing beggars house hunters edition, that was amazing.    

[aemom]

I just saw Thursday's episode and is this a first?  Every single litigant was well spoken!  It's a People's Court Miracle.

 

The first case with the P who loaned the D and her hubby a boatload of money that they didn't pay back.  I think the truth is somewhere down the middle.  I think that the Ds were only too happy to accept all the free outings and payments.  I suspect that the P was happy to buy their friendship to a certain extent, but then realized how much it was costing her.  At any rate, it's over now and the gravy train has reached the end of the line.

 

The travel agent case: The D is lucky that the P didn't sue for all the hassle of getting into their room and the excursions that they had no record of finding booked.  I think that they could have gotten some compensation for that too.  I did appreciate that Purple Lips admitted that she totally owed them the money.

 

Grandma and her used tire.  Being married to a car buff, I know what a tire bubble is and yeah, they're pretty obvious.  When VW told her she had a bubble on her tire, the first thing I would have asked is "show it to me," and then taken a picture of it.  I would have then called up the tire shop to see what's what before shelling out for a new tire from VW.  But honestly, none of that would have ever happened to me because I would never buy a used tire.  Nor would I ever expect to be able to buy any sort of decent new tire for only $60.  Granny says "who looks at a tire?"  Uh, me!  I look at everything that I buy, especially when it comes to garages and dealers because I don't trust them at all.  She tried to pull the little old lady crap who knows nothing about cars, but that doesn't fly with MM.

Edited January 13, 2019 by AEMom
Typo

[Blissfool]

On 1/8/2019 at 7:40 PM, AEMom said:

I always think that it's a bit fishy when they don't bring the person involved.  

 

On 1/8/2019 at 9:26 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

There are a lot of reasons the carwash guy, and others who actually did the work don't show up in court.   Some can't leave the state without their parole officer, or bail bond person's consent, others are probably in witness protection, or on the 10 most wanted list.     

There are real reasons, I know a few people who are scared to death of flying, or would have to get a babysitter and pay them for a few days for full time care, or some other personal reason.   And maybe not everyone wants to go to Judge M's court, and potentially be yelled at.    

I always think that it's because the owner doesn't consider the low-tier employee worthy of a free trip to New York/California. He'd rather take a buddy he can have fun with.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Blissfool