Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Lillybee

The People's Court

Recommended Posts

From the looks of the aerial,  that space isn't that wide and is probably needed for large fire equipment.  BJs should slap a red line down and call it a day.

A car veehickle in a fire line twists my panties.  We're talking lives here, asshole.

Edited by zillabreeze
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

A/c kerfuffle: Plaintiff is the kind of thick, meat-headed, ignorant moron ("goin', comin' etc) I can't stand. "My wife was on VACATION! It was HOT. She was FREAKING OUT!" His wife is a delicate hothouse flower who has had the easiest life ever if she's hysterically crying for hours over a disagreement with the a/c guy. Through her tears, she called Sir Lancelot to defend her honour, and he raced home, sword at the ready. A/C guy called her "Sweetie!" I understand why she was in hysterics over that. A/C guy was a dweeby dipshit. I mean, even I check the filter in my a/c unit. It never occured to the expert to do the same? A/c guy's wife knows exactly what happened although she wasn't there, which is usually done by parents defending their Hellspawn. Her little man was "physically touched." Is there a way to touch someone not physically? A bunch of boring nitwits. I guess plaintiff's wife could not appear here because she's still crying? Both litigants thought JM really wanted to hear their thoughts and their moods. She did not.

I heard the word "dog" in the next case. Skipped. Stop with the dog cases!

3rd: Once again, we have some overly-entitled snowflake who thinks she can park illegally because she does it all the time and she has THREE little kids, which should make her exempt from the rules others must follow. OH, but think of the children! They are traumatized and terrified because mommy's car got towed. Those kids have a hard life in front of them. I guess she never explained to them that Mommy got punished because she ignores rules. Hey, it was hot that day! Not sure why her Dumbo-eared goofy hubby was standing there since he had nothing to say. Plaintiff says in the hall that she figured out the maximum she could score in small claims, so tried for that. Don't think so. Lottery denied. More nerve than a sore tooth she had.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I heard the word "dog" in the next case. Skipped. Stop with the dog cases!

But you missed the indignant defendant who thinks the judge should take into account her dog's temperament, reasoning, and feelings when deciding a bite case. Plus her dog never gets out. Plus plaintiff kicked her dog trying to stop the attack while she and fat biker-type guy just stood there. Like JM said, it's everybody else's fault but hers. SMH

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

But you missed the indignant defendant who thinks the judge should take into account her dog's temperament, reasoning, and feelings when deciding a bite case.

I stand by my opinion that most people we see here are not smart enough to properly care for guppies, never mind dogs.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Can I just say that I loved  Doug Llewelyn in the hallterview holding the defendant to needing to be more responsible with her dog, right in front of her very large hothead husband?  She was getting pretty upset herself. 

The snowflake parking tow case was very entertaining.  Mama needs to teach her babies about consequences, or there will be  more snowflakes in the making. 

  • Like 5
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I stand by my opinion that most people we see here are not smart enough to properly care for guppies, never mind dogs.

Many are not even competent enough to care for a pet rock.

In th A/C case, the "it's impossible to live without air conditioning during the summer where we live", it makes you wonder of what miraculous stuff people were made who managed to survive  in the very same state or city during the 18th and 19th centuries.

  • Like 5
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

In th A/C case, the "it's impossible to live without air conditioning during the summer where we live", it makes you wonder of what miraculous stuff people were made who managed to survive  in the very same state or city during the 18th and 19th centuries.

And he informs JM that it gets really hot in Florida. Duh. But yes, before the advent of a/c I guess people just melted like candle wax and spent a lot of time crying.

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

In th A/C case, the "it's impossible to live without air conditioning during the summer where we live", it makes you wonder of what miraculous stuff people were made who managed to survive  in the very same state or city during the 18th and 19th centuries.

There's lots of stuff like that.  It's impossible to live without a cell phone.  Even for a 10 year old.  

But, to be fair, it is hotter than it is and people get used to having A/C.  And I didn't see the epi so don't know if this is applicable, but older people and people with certain diseases can have health issues if they get too hot.  So, what they would have done it the 18th and 19th centuries is die, which would be one factor why life expectancy was lower back then.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Katy M said:

And I didn't see the epi so don't know if this is applicable, but older people and people with certain diseases can have health issues if they get too hot.

These people were not old and had no health problems affected by heat, although I agree I would not want to be in Fl. without a/c. He just could have skipped the histrionics about MY WIFE was on VACATION and she needs to be cool!! and the tears and the hysterics and not tried to educate JM about the weather conditions in Fl.  Does no one take 2 minutes to Google this show and JM before appearing here?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Katy M said:

And I didn't see the epi so don't know if this is applicable, but older people and people with certain diseases can have health issues if they get too hot. So, what they would have done it the 18th and 19th centuries is die

That's called natural selection.

Those plaintiffs did not appear old or feeble. 

It sometimes gets extremely hot and muggy here during the summer, and people who spend their days cuddled by A/C during the day at work can get quite a shock at the end of the work day. But barring truly serious respiratory ailments, people can endure an A/C failure for a few days.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

resulted from her own negligence, not from the tow company doing what they are contracted to do by the store that owns the parking lot.

Resulted from her lie to her own children that the "bad people" took their car, like it was stolen by car thieves, not the truth that the car was simply towed by someone doing their job due to mommy not parking where she was supposed to.  But, then that would be admitting mommy was at fault for something, when, of course, she is never at fault and she just did what she always does, what everybody does, and everyone is against her even the mean security guard.  Disliked her immensely.

Didn't like that JM acted like mommy was really right that she should have been allowed to park there but her hands were tied because there weren't parking lines so the judge had to rule against her.  Also, JM was annoyed that the tow company owner showed up to defend the case without the driver but was annoyed two days ago when the twenty year old who interacted with the plaintiff was sent to defend the company's interests.

Edited by Bazinga
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

Didn't like that JM acted like mommy was really right that she should have been allowed to park there but her hands were tied because there weren't parking lines so the judge had to rule against her.

Yeah, I got that too. "You had a bad day," as though the reason for that had nothing to do with Mommy-of-three thinking that having kids is an excuse to park anywhere she pleases. Too bad a big firetruck didn't roar in there and smash her car to bits.

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

Didn't like that JM acted like mommy was really right that she should have been allowed to park there but her hands were tied because there weren't parking lines so the judge had to rule against her. 

Especially since she did not know if that configuration was because the owner decided to do it that way, which was his absolute right, or if it was a result of fire or municipal regulations.

It's another instance of JM tending to identifiy with the "bad girl" and wishing she could have been one of them.

That lazy driver should have been grateful she did not get caught before and taken her licks this time around,. The "everybody does it" excuse never cuts it with me.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

That lazy driver should have been grateful she did not get caught before and taken her licks this time around,. The "everybody does it" excuse never cuts it with me.

Exactly. Someone around got caught doing a "rolling stop" at a stop sign and got a ticket. He bitched to the cop, "Everyone drives through that sign." The cop told him, "Tomorrow it will be their turn. Either you want laws or you don't. "

20 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

It's another instance of JM tending to identifiy with the "bad girl" and wishing she could have been one of them.

In this case, I don't think so. Nothing "bad girl" about a frumpy mom with an actual "Goofy" cartoon for a husband. I think JM sympathized with the "3 kids" part.

"Now, my little darlings, watch Mommy park illegally and get her car towed. Don't worry, mommy will say  it's not her fault, get someone else to take the blame and get a whole bunch of money besides.  Just you watch!"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

My guess is that the 'fire lane' was there because the fire department access pipe (standpipe or something like that), that they hook fire hoses up to is on that side.   That way the fire department can hook up to them, and have roof access quickly in case of a fire.  

Share this post


Link to post

Regarding the AC debacle, the Plaintiff was definitely appealing to JM's "Florida-girl" side in terms of how his wife would die with AC especially on her Stay-cation!!   I grew up in Wisconsin without AC and sometimes the summers were brutal, but fans helped.  Now I live in S Florida and I would also be in a slight panic if the AC died.  Not only is comfort a concern, but with the humidity, moisture and mold can be very damaging.  I didn't buy the defendant's British wife's claim that the defendant was such a mild-mannered dude.  He was obviously pissed off having had to come there a million times

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/15/2019 at 3:57 PM, Florinaldo said:

And she obviously does not have the necessary brain cells to realise that the alleged trauma to her children, those fragile special snowflakes,  resulted from her own negligence, not from the tow company doing what they are contracted to do by the store that owns the parking lot.

As though little kids would be traumatized over Mom's car being towed, if Mom acted like a normal human being and cared about their perception of this. I'm pretty sure their trauma resulted from Mom kicking up a fuss in front of them, no doubt screaming and crying and carrying on. She must have done this if she expected thousands of dollars for the pain and suffering she endured. I hate when people use their kids as pawns or bargaining tools. Disgusting.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I can't believe that Bj's Mom actually thought she'd win.  There were other players in this like the store itself or the unhelpful security guard as well as the supposedly incompetent 911 operators.    The "fire lane" issue seemed rather garbled.  Was she or was she not in the fire lane and what did the paperwork say??  Haven't we seen that tow company owner before?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, BigBingerBro said:

Haven't we seen that tow company owner before?

That's what I was thinking, but can't remember the case.

10 hours ago, BigBingerBro said:

  The "fire lane" issue seemed rather garbled.  Was she or was she not in the fire lane and what did the paperwork say?? 

I don't know if it was a fire lane, but it was definitely not a parking space.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I don't know if it was a fire lane, but it was definitely not a parking space.

I agree, but I did notice that the area she parked in looked like a lot of cars had parked in these spots based on the oil stains on the pavement. This does not excuse her from her responsibilty, "everyone speeds" may be true but is not a defense from a ticket.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, BigBingerBro said:

The "fire lane" issue seemed rather garbled.  Was she or was she not in the fire lane and what did the paperwork say??

I don't think pictures were entered into evidence showing a sign posted to that effect, but there clearly weren't lines drawn on the ground, so it definitely was not designated as a parking spots, despite JM's dumbass argument that it is a waste of space. If the lot owner wishes to "waste space" in order to faclitate the flow of cars, it's his business, fire lane or not. Although I would not be surprised to learn that this configuration results at least in part from city or fire department ordinances.

I also noticed the oil stains on the ground, indicating people do park there; but, we do not know how many of them were towed in the past for the very same reason as the plaintiff. Didn't the tow operator say it was a regular nuisance (or perhaps it was in the opening narration)?

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

I agree, but I did notice that the area she parked in looked like a lot of cars had parked in these spots based on the oil stains on the pavement.

I'm sure other people park there. Some get towed, some don't. Anyone who wants to chance the odds has no room to squawk when it's their turn to get towed.

Edited by AngelaHunter · Reason: missed a word. Again.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Hubby and I were discussing the oil stain issue on the picture that was shown.

We walk every morning at a local mall.  As part of that process, we park WAY OUT in the parking lot to get in more steps as we walk towards the mall.  As we were discussing the oil stains in the PC court case, I noticed something.  If a parking spot is used frequently (handicapped spot or other spots closer to the mall), there seemed to always be fresh oil stains.  The farther from the stores, the less oil - indicating (to me, at least) that those spots are not used as much.  

If I remember correctly, there were darker areas in "her" parking space, but not fresh stains, indicating those spots probably don't get daily use.  The only reason those spaces don't look frequently used, in spite of their close proximity to the store entrance, is that MOST sensible people realize that there are NO LINES there, so those are NOT parking spaces.

Imagine this scenario:  Suppose there was a fire in the lower part of the picture in that corner of the parking lot, blocking that access.  Let's assume she was legally parked in one of the marked spaces just above that, just got to her car, started the engine, and was ready to leave with her three kids when the fire broke out.  Let's assume that someone else was parked in the spot we are discussing, and that car was restricting her ability to get her car out, or to allow emergency vehicles into that area.  How much would she sue for to address her trauma and that of her kids?

Entitled little snowflake, that one.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Another case of family members (two sisters this time) fighting over funeral costs.    How sad.  I don't think it helped when the one sister proudly proclaimed that the money people gave her for the funeral costs, went for her vacation.     I hope the vacation was worth losing her relationship with her sister, and any other family member that sided against her.    

I did enjoy the woman and hubby, who bought a bedroom set from a lady, didn't pick it up, and 30 days later the woman resold it.      The homeowner/seller said that she wasn't baby sitting the buyer's multiple kids during the pick up either.     The woman and her husband claimed they were going to disassemble the dresser and bed to take it out with the husband's help.   There is no way they were going to take that huge dresser apart, just the bed.      And they never said anything about the kids staying home either.      I totally agree with the defendant reselling the bedroom set after 30 days, and had to laugh that the plaintiffs thought you could get a full refund on used furniture.   

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Another case of family members (two sisters this time) fighting over funeral costs.   

When discussing receiving envelopes from people who knew the mother, one sister said they received "Cordelia cards and Nessie cards".   Does anyone know what those are?  Is it some church thing or a southern thing or maybe something only know to this plaintiff/family.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, patty1h said:

When discussing receiving envelopes from people who knew the mother, one sister said they received "Cordelia cards and Nessie cards".   Does anyone know what those are?  Is it some church thing or a southern thing or maybe something only know to this plaintiff/family.

Nessie cards are greeting cards designed by Nessie McClay. I imagine Cordelia cards are a brand also.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Whoa, didn't watch more than a few minutes last week - new hair color for MM (expect typos - not proofed)

  1. 'Nother family funeral fight: (once again thankful my parents managed to raise 5 kids who grieved and supported each other when we lost our parents - no lawsuits or even vehicular vandalism or brick throwing)... (case may be boring, but I'm going to be watching bug eyed girl sitting behind D - I swear during D intro this girl had a frozen face and shifty bug eyes which distracted me from whatever nonsense intro clown was sprewing - alas, after intro camera angle different and blond bug eyed girl not in background) old story, siblings go to mats after mom dies. Apparently mom had a couple insurance policies, and had D named as beneficiary on one. When mom died, according to P sister, funeral costs were paid for by the rest of the family, while D sister took her insurance money to go on vacation. May not sound like nicest thing to do, but unless there was something in the policy specifying where money was to go I think D sis can spend the money however she likes. testimony: seems P was designated executor of the will and will already been probated. Mom was 86 when she died, had raised three kids together, etc. One of D's claims during intro was that P had taken over mom's finances before her death and hinted there was something underhanded there. P testifies that mom had two life insurance policies which specified the money was to go for funeral expenses - ah, but P doesn't have a copy and D says policy said nothing about how money was to be spent. Ok, sounds like D was the problem child - admits she used to be into drugs, but that she has been clean/sober for past 20 years.... hmmm, policy taken out before she got clean, maybe mom was an enabler who wanted to make sure trouble child got a piece of the estate because she half expected other siblings to shut D out.... ok, D rambles on about her story, and I sort of zone out, apparently P may not be quite the responsible one we were initially led to believe, D says D was living (sponging off) mom for years and then P "lost" her apartment and came to live with mom and sort of took over the finances. D says P mishandled one of the policies, which is why it did not pay in full and why mom's final expenses weren't covered. MM does get to how P took over power of attorney - nothing underhanded, mom going into rest home, P given power of attorney, D knew about hearing, says she knew P was trying to get power of attorney, but decided not to attend or contest it - pretty standard for one of the kids to be appointed point of contact for finances.... ok, case going nowhere... unless I dozed off nobody produced the policy in question, so nothing saying D couldn't treat mom's life insurance as found money and take a trip.... well, except - switcheroo - there is... seems when they planned the funeral together, D knew funeral was going to run 10 grand. MM gets D to admit the 5 grand from her policy was to cover half the cost, but then in next breath D back tracks and goes back to original claim that it was hers to do with as she likes. Ok, so P, authorized 10 grand funeral expecting D to contribute 5 grand, D decided to vacation instead, she owes the money.... 10 more minutes but I'm over this one as this dissolves into nonsense with D turning her back to P and side to MM.... P gets the money and D leaves saying she never said she wasn't going to give it to her (huh, they still see each other daily, yet it takes a lawsuit to get her to pay.... nah, really she paid nothing, TPC pays)
  2. Parking lot bumper cars: P claims D hopped in her car and proceeded to back up into his 3yo BMW - claims D totally at fault, but D's overbearing hot-headed daddy got involved and refuses to pay anything - asking for $1439.27 in damages defendant whoa, another older looking teen, I thought these two were a couple not father and teenaged daughter when doors opened... says damage consisted of tiny ding/scratch, $1400 estimate a money grab attempt testimony... ok, parking lot ding without the parking lot - turns out these are feuding neighbors, and accident occurs when teenager backs out of driveway and hits car parked across street in front of P's house. Accident happens in Janurary, but everybody let's it slide for months after D daddy agreed to pay for repairs (well, P says he claimed family has/know's folks who have body shop, so will have repair done there - daddy shaking head while P talking) - ah, he skipped it, but now says he gave D an estimate in January shortly after accident... guess he didn't want to use D's shop... come mid April, P sees lady of house (little dig with "wife, gf, fiancé, whatever, don't know what her role is") and asks when is damage going to paid for... 2 more weeks, sees daddy in driveway, goes over to ralk to him, gets the brush off - another week, goes back and talks to woman, says if he isn't paid next week he's going to cops/court - D PO'ed, comes over screaming and yelling and ends with he's not going to pay anything - P tries to go through insurance, turns out both have State Farm,  and P says D denied any knowledge of an accident when State Farm called... uh oh, gives State Farm reason to deny claim, so now it will be all on D since Teenager already acknowledged hitting the Beemer... time to hear from daddy D - ok, he starts with he never learned about accident until a week later - contradicts P's story, but, if true, did teenager not tell daddy? P may have embellished his recitation timeliness of events, but not buying start of D's testimony - ok, daughter and daddy remember their script, so both talk about how P said not to worry, it'll buff out (MM looks to P, he says he's an accountant, he don't know nothing about buffing) - D says couple weeks go bye, P presents him with estimate for $13-1400 and he ain't a gonna pay - ah, now we learn there is some truth to "I know somebody with a shop" turns out D father in law owes a shop - oh, and there's good reason why P may not have wanted to go with that shop, as D says he was waiting to catch P in driveway so they could discuss the damage instead of knocking on his door - ok, not much of a case - daughter admits backing into car, P has pictures and estimate, Daddy admits he denied there was an accident when called, both sides acting like children instead of settling things like adults but D has no defense - MM summing up and about to rule after lecturing both sides for acting like preschoolers - D has to pay, but $1139.27, a couple hundred less than I remember the claim was for - not sure why, and not interested rnough to go back and figure out. 
  3. used bedroom furniture: big kerfuffle over used mattress - P claims she bought used bedroom set, but when they went to pick it up D decided mattress wasn't part of deal... uh, personally I'm not sure I'd want someone else's old mattress.... defendant introsays deal was always for $300 and never included mattress, says P developed attitude when she came for the furniture, kerfuffle, cops called, no refunds.... hmmm, haven't heard any testimony, but halfway expect MM to declare there was no meeting of the minds and unwind the deal... oh dear, as we go to commercial I hear enough to know we have another family death case and crying widow defendant with accent with MM asking why she's crying....  ah, definitely need CC as English seems to be plaintiff's second language as well - even more reason to suspect no meeting of mind as I have trouble understanding both sides.... ok, furniture advertised on "Let It Go" app - P passes up the ad, and MM reads from the ad "mattress not included"... well that settles the mattress question, is it enough to negate the no meeting of mind issue and allow D to keep refund? Oh boy, P just keeps digging herself a hole here - seems she shows up to pick up furniture with hubby, a 5yo, 3yo and 6 month old and wanted D to watch the kids while she and hubby load the furniture! Huh? Then, she tries to claim room was too dark and crowded to really see what she ends up buying.... really disliking P, but why the hell didn'the D just give back the money - oh, that's right, P may have been pretty unreasonable as she's here not seeking full refund, but almost double for list wages. Back to unreasonable demands... P showed up and agreed to buy the bedroom set, but had no way to carry it away. She seems to think it strange that seller wanted to be paid in full before letting P, the buyer, take partial delivery (could only take 1 nightstand, what with the kids and diaper bags). So P pays the full $300, takes the nightstand, and leaves rest of bedroom set. Next day she calls at 6pm saying they'really be there in 20 minutes for rest of furniture - still trying to say mattress was included for the $300 even though D and the ad P provided said it wasn't.  Now she says D got an 'tude, and wanted more money to include the mattress, that she refused to babysit rug rats again, and that they needed to bring enough people to actually take it with them this time (some nonsense that she and hubby are going to show up with kids and tools and 'disassemble' a full sized chest of drawers and carry it downstairs?).... D position sounds reasonable to me.... ah. But when MM starts getting D's side she gets all emotional and weepy - not sure if she's actually this fragile or if this is a bid for sympathy, but hurts her case in my eyes as I'm questioning again how these sides had a meeting of minds to strike a deal... Ok, more nonsense from P.... they had plenty of time to check out the furniture - but now are saying when they examined the nightstand they took home is was cheaper than expected.... so is this an excuse to get out of deal - I thought reason they wanted to back out was mattress, then it was 'unreasonable' D saying they needed to bring more help than 3 little kids, now furniture sub par even though they had all the time they wanted to decide. Now, so much time has passed that the house has sold and the furniture is gone. P loses.
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

'Nother family funeral fight:

Ugh. More siblings fighting like hyenas over a carcass and we're not talking a multi-million dollar estate here, but 5K.  I'm sure Mom would be so proud. I love how so many people who don't seem to have two nickels to rub together want state funerals and royal weddings, I guess to show off? I almost enjoyed def's attitude changing from, "Aren't I cute and sweet? I was Mommy's favorite girl" to duck-lipping and major 'tude, including glaring at the audience when everything came out. Other than that- meh. Seen and heard it all before. I'm just grateful JM didn't spend to much time on family counselling and the "try to love one another right now" thing.

42 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Parking lot bumper cars: 

Another case where all litigants were supremely unlikable. Plaintiff is annoying, smirky twerp and defs? Like SRTouch I was shocked to find out they are father/daughter and not husband/wife. Hefty daughter ("My princess is 18! She shouldn't have to be responsible for anything she does" is Daddy's thought) looked at least 30.

Big daughter says she was scared to tell Daddy she hit plaintiff's car. Really? Was he going to beat her, or lock her in her basement? Daddy is a thick-headed moron who maybe is beginning to exhibit the old "roid rage." Well, at least Daddy taught his baby girl a good lesson - "No matter what you do, sweetheart, just deny it and pretend it never happened."

47 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

used bedroom furniture: big kerfuffle over used mattress

Okay, so plaintiffs, who expected def to babysit their three kids while they spent the whole day taking apart a bedroom set to  move it? I'm sorry but even with the removal of the drawers and mirror from the dressers, that couple could not get the big dresser down the stairs. I guess they realized that and decided they didn't want it, using the excuse that def ordered them to hire movers and and that the furniture wasn't really "solid hardwood." For people who want a used mattress (yuck) they became awfully picky. I have a similar bedroom set, from one of the top most pricey manufacturers here, and the backs of the pieces are not hardwood. No modern furniture claiming to be hardwood is hardwood all over, but the drawer fronts and tops/trims are. If they want that they need to have it custom-made for thousands of dollars instead of buying second hand stuff. JM was knocked off-guard when she asks def a simple question and gets a tearful rant instead. I don't know how these two litigants could even understand each other enough to come to any agreement. I once sold a full bedroom set and the people who bought it brought help to get it out of the house and into a truck they had. I never felt any of that was my problem. If you want refunds, go buy at a furniture store.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, patty1h said:

one sister said they received "Cordelia cards and Nessie cards". 

Shows how much I was paying attention. I though Cordelia and Nessie were the sisters' names.

  • Like 5
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Shows how much I was paying attention. I though Cordelia and Nessie were the sisters' names.

Me, too!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Nother family funeral fight:

I couldn't really bother to follow the pleadings because of the defendant's off-putting dramatics and acting up all offended by the proceedings. It turned out in the hallterview that all of her indignation was shown to have been an act, a strategy she must use often to get out of predicaments.

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Parking lot bumper cars:

Plaintiff was smirkily annoying, but the defendant father was a lying asshole and deserved to pay for every penny of the damage his precious giant snowflake of a daughter did.

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

used bedroom furniture: 

Another plaintiff who feels she can rewrite the terms of an agreement in a way that would now be more convenient for her. Her story of planning to disassemble the dresser was nonsense; I would not trust that nitwit to crack open an egg.

The defendant should have held off on the  tears and weepiness. It almost made me regret that she was in the right and that the ruling went her way.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

The funeral sisters were so lucky that Mom didn't fall for the TV insurance policies for final expenses.   A friend's father died, leaving a bunch of the mass market advertising policies.        His adult kids went to the funeral home thinking they had enough money from the policies for a funeral to rival a movie star's, and with lots left over.    Unfortunately, they were the type that only paid off on an accidental death, and that's why there is no medical exam required to get the insurance, and why they will give anyone a policy.       

The novice driver who whacked the car really needs to accept blame, and not follow her father's example of whining about the bill, or else hit cheaper cars.

I had to laugh at the furniture plaintiff's attempt to get a bonanza off of some used furniture she didn't pick up.     I can see why the seller was so emotional.  She wanted to get the bedroom set from her marriage out of the house, and these people jerked her around until she resold it to someone who actually picked it up.      The buyers were fools, that nightstand, and heavy furniture was worth a lot more than hiring a couple of moving men, and their truck for an hour.   

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Oh my, today's first case with the unusually named sisters versus the self proclaimed "prophetess"? I can't even snark on these people, they are all such a mass of painful dysfunctionality. I don't even wonder what was going with one of the plaintiff's upper lip.

Edited by DoctorK
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Precious,  her sister Mello, and her late son Kingdom.  Good Lord.  I couldn't hear anything any of the participants said. 

Sounds like ol' Precious the Pious was two syllables away from saying  "the blood of Jesus, my ass..."😅

Edited by arejay
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
  1. defamation/false allegation case: whoa, listening to intro and the preview clip has me scared of this bunch. Also has me wondering if these are real names are something from a strip club where they double as the bouncers (maybe the club the mom of 8 from JJ works at). Plaintiff's are sisters Precious and Mello Desire - wow, their mommy worked hard coming up with those names. They want 4 grand because they say defendant, Kilalah Jones, trash talked them on social media and wrongly reported one of them to CPS. Kilalah says she called CPS after one of the two (already losing interest and didn't bother to find out which) left a baby unattended in a stroller for an hour. She says all the trash talking was just her defending herself on social media after the two went after her for making the call - oh, and she says she a pastor - her countersuit is for 10 grand, again for defamation along with pain and suffering.... somehow I don't think I'll watch this one til the end.... testimony: ok, scratch stripper/bouncer theory, according to Mello she runs some non-profit for kids with her sister and thought Kilalah would be a good addition to their team mentoring young people - Mello actually sounds reasonably sane - ah, but then Sister Precious starts talking about meeting K on FB, calls K a prophetess and MM asks K what that means, and K explains God speaks through her.... ah, sort of like the Pope..... yep, pretty sure liberal use of zip button about to be made with this one - though too bad there isn't split screen because the few times camera shifts to K she's making some funny faces.... ok, apparently the happy trio got together to chat about K joining the non-profit, and K got all upset over something after 3 hours of chatting, eating dinner, and reading the 12 page mission statement for the nonprofit.... actually had me wondering if maybe K is not the best reader because when it was her turn she refused to read a paragraph aloud Iike the others had been doing - she sure throws out some big words while talking, but sort of sounds like she's putting on airs and not really sure what she's saying.... anyway, big kerfuffle, K storms out, next day K starts her FB trash talk campaign, apparently running down Mello's parenting skill and talking *!%#@* about how Mello's 13 yo son had been murdered and it was due to bad mothering by Mello.... ok, yeah, part of case, so MM needs to bring it out, but I don't need to watch Dr Phil session - Zip zip - next, Mello and Precious go bonkers and show up at K's church and disrupt services, screaming match in front of bunch of kids with preacher using PA system... ok, maybe not Dr Phil, this is Springer stuff with bad cameramen... nuf of this - zip zip - ruling has Ps getting their 4 grand and K gets nothing... and WTF is K going on about in hallterview
  2. Property damage: P claims bus driver parked where he shouldn't have, which caused damage to P's pavement - she wants $540 to patch the damage defendant: bus company head honcho says no way her bus caused this damage, P looking for bonanza (huh, $540 doesn't sound like Ponderosa type money) testimony: ok, simple case, P comes home to find crater in her pavement - goes to store on corner and asks if clerk knows what happened, clerk says bus parked there - clerk not in court, but store has cameras - D basing her defense on claim her driver never parked there - pictures show different - for whatever reason (probably because P thinks D ignored her complaint) P never showed D the photographic proof, suing instead - no case here, just P getting back at D for ignoring her complaint and saying she was making a money grab - sort of fun to watch, though, as P actually has evidence. Poor D gobsmacked, has to laugh as plainly her driver parked way over onto sidewalk and then lied to her when questioned... and yet still she tries to stick to claim "he didn't do that!" - ah, no, she wasn't saying driver didn't do the damage, she's saying "that lying b@st@rd lied straight to my face and let me make a fool of myself on national teevee!" (Seems that driver no longer works for the company) Ah, and I can understand why P never presented D with the pictures - seems she sent a certified demand letter to D offering to meet and go over the picture evidence along with three estimates for the repairs, D signed for receiving the letter, but never responded (she has letter in court and just now reading that P told her she had pictures). Ok, laughter all around, P gets the money and D looks the fool.
  3. 'nother slum lord being sued by tenant (anybody keep track of how many times the "slumlord" actually turns out to be the reasonable litigant in the case):  ok, if I got the intro right - P rented place from D - place foreclosed on and new owners kicking her out - she's suing for the deposit.... has to be a quicky, short on time and no case against ex landlord - even if she's entitled to return of deposit, new owner should be one to return it defendant (ex landlord) says she used up deposit when she used it for last month of rent... ah thought it would be all P looking silly, but -switcheroo - in preview slick landlord getting called on carpet for being "cagey" testimony: ok, yep, D tries to be slick and give short half true answers - which MM is NOT accepting... even if dude is 100% right about tenant living out last month using deposit, his credibility is zero after trying to dodge fact place was in foreclosure and this was a short sale - by time MM asks if he had notified tenant her home was in foreclosure I believe nothing he says - ok, turns out P way more credible (or maybe it's just that nothing D says rings true) - D says she paid June and July rent, but D says last month she paid was May... seeing as how I just zipped through street gallery, I imagine she's about to show proof she paid those months - yep, she paid using money orders and has already proved to new owners she paid D rent - sort of blows defense out of water - D should have stuck with the short non-answers, as soon as he starts explaining things MM catches his inconsistencies - back to slick short non-answers as he does his best to deny new owners are in process of evicting his ass  (tenant long gone) - course maybe he has reason for these non-answers if there is pending eviction case and new owners already looking to collect rent he collected when he had no right to money he should have never agreed to appear.
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

defamation/false allegation case:

Oh, my. Another shining example of the devout, the uber-religious, the pastor and a "Prophetess". Just what is a "Prophetess" anyway. Precious? Mello? What is this - "My Little Pony"? Anyway, who thinks the Prophetess is illiterate? I know people who are illiterate have all kinds of ways of hiding that fact - "My eyes hurt", "I just used eyedrops and can't see", "I forgot my glasses" or in this case, "How dare you ask me to read something?" And yeah, her eyes hurt. At least she can find her way to the hair/nail/eyelash and makeup salons. I'm pretty sure someone else, probably the hubby, wrote those FB posts as his lovely wife dictated. All these women of God, who reveal themselves to be vicious and out of control. That shrieking, wild display in the church, in public,  was most un-Mello and very different from the way she presented herself here. Are people of God usually so vindictive and nasty? I really don't know, but I wouldn't think so.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Property damage: 

I started watching this, thought I'd missed something and had to start over because the plaintiff was talking about "Payment" and it took a second viewing to realize she meant "pavement." Yes, she should have sent the pics to def, but after listening to def, I realized it would have done no good, because def insisted her driver didn't do the damage. She's sure of that although she wasn't there and never would have paid for the damage. Is "payment" a regional way of saying  "pavement" because I'm sure the def said the same thing.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

'nother slum lord being sued by tenant

This was kind of amusing. JM: "You sold the property?" Def: "Yes, I sold the property." JM: "Did you sell it or was it in foreclosure?" Def: "I sold the property." JM: "Was it a short sale?" Def: "I sold the property." Not only is he a liar, but a not-very-bright one. As if someone who is broke and loses his property is going to tell a tenant, "You don't need to pay rent. I don't need the money." I wish plaintiff could have been awarded more, just because def is such an under-handed, sneaky, lying creep and she had to go to the trouble of suing him.  He continued his shifty lying in the hall.

4 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I don't even wonder what was going with one of the plaintiff's upper lip.

She had no trouble getting someone to impregnate her, so yay!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Are people of God usually so vindictive and nasty? I really don't know, but I wouldn't think so.

All the ones I've encountered are.  And they'll screw you over in a heartbeat (in the name of God).

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

In all fairness to Mello, the defendant posted on Facebook that it was her fault her 13 year old son was murdered by gang members, that she hadn't been doing her job as a parent or it wouldn't have happened. Then she reported Precious to CPS for bringing her baby to the church where the screaming and yelling was taking place. She told JM that she had the kid in a stroller, then walked away, and JM said, "Well, the baby was in a stroller. What was she supposed to do, lie down on top if it?"

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

Sometimes when I hear Judge M talk about her kids I wonder if she and Mr. Judge M have done all that great a job raising them.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, SRTouch said:

defamation/false allegation case: 

I have zero sympathy for people who put their trust in pastors, faith healers, evangelists selling miracle water/talismans/recipes, preachers of any kind and in this specific instance a "prophetess" who claims to speak for her alleged god. Judging from her incoherent rant in the hallterview, that particular deity suffers from a bad case of Alzheimer's.

Every person in this case, including the bishop who shouted "the blood of Jesus is against you!", was repulsive but on the whole plaintiffs did deserve some compensation, even though they also behaved  badly.

(I feel very proud of myself for not making any snarky comment regarding the litigants' rather idiosyncratic first names.)

18 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Property damage:

It was entertaining to see the defendant trying to stand up for her driver's statement to her, only to finally realise how untenable that position was, even if it took a little nudge from MM for her to finally do so.

18 hours ago, SRTouch said:

'nother slum lord being sued by tenant (anybody keep track of how many times the "slumlord" actually turns out to be the reasonable litigant in the case)

I think that for many litigants the definition of "slumlord" is " a landlord who did not let me have it my way; nothing to do with the actual condition of the housing unit".

At first glance, it seemed a slam dunk for the defendant. In transactions like this, liabilities and assets (including deposits) are all transferred to the buyer, so the plaintiff appeared to be suing the wrong person. But defendant did not use that line of defense, did not provide any evidence and was so shifty about the rent collection (and everything else) that it was impossible to disagree with MM ruling against him.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dshgr said:

All the ones I've encountered are.  And they'll screw you over in a heartbeat (in the name of God).

Whenever we see the super-religious, cross-wearing, self-proclaimed pastors (many of whom can't even speak proper English), church goers and the devout on this show (who have no qualms about lying like rugs and committing decidely un-christian acts against others), I always think of a line from the movie "Hannah and her Sisters": “If Jesus came back and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up.”

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

What was wrong with Mello's lip?     

What a horrible thing to post about the death of the plaintiff's son.   $2k for each plaintiff.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, dshgr said:

All the ones I've encountered are.  And they'll screw you over in a heartbeat (in the name of God).

I have known and worked with quite a few seriously religious people (I am hard core atheist myself) and most were decent people with good intentions. What we see on these court shows are mostly scum of the earth and not representative of any normal group of people, whether by race, section eight status, living off of government benefits, planet of origin, etc.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

The couple suing the architect for all of their money back, when he told them additions are never approved the first time by the HOA architectural review committee was bizarre.     The plaintiff wife was awful, and argued with everyone.   I felt sorry for Doug in the hall, when she kept disputing everything he said.     The poor architect certainly had a bad time working with those people.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I feel dirty after the case of the Tinder date hookup/mortgage loan.  These are two mature, grown people trading money for sex after the second date.  So many red flags:  not running after being called a broke man, lending money after one date, sleeping over/sharing a sectional couch after first date, meeting the son who robs ice cream trucks, finding this man "drinking medicine out of the bottle", finding out this man was suicidal, etc.  So sordid and tacky.

The defendant was such a gold digger who must have a magic mirror that told her that any man should be happy to shell out cash whenever she requests it.  When she started on a long, rambling story of how they met, I knew she was just babbling to confuse the issue.  I like how JM stopped her mid-babble and asked when she got the money from lover boy.  The plaintiff seemed nice but dim, and maybe a little needy after losing his wife a few years ago.   He should consider himself lucky he got away with only giving her $600.

Edited by patty1h
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
  1. online dating loan: couple met online - P loans D money for her mortgage - claims she was to repay the next week, but when time came she told him she had already repaid him with sex - suing for $500 defendant: intro claims he gave her the money on condition they stayed together - says she broke up with him because of his gun toting criminal kids.... uh, if intro clown is right, her version is the money was sort of like an engagement ring, a conditional gift - condition not met, so no longer a gift... she has a $200 countersuit for lost wages 'cuz he sued to get the money back.... doesn't sound like she has a defense, and what's this, turns out the gift/loan was for $250, half his claim is for lost wages because of time pursuing this case - so toss the frivolous nonsense lost wages from both sides and case really about $250... testimony ok dufus cleans up pretty nice, not sure why alarm bells didn't go off when woman he met on Tinder 2 weeks earlier, he says they had only met once before she asked for money for her mortgage - well, if intro is right, and I have time line right, they were in bed within 3 weeks of meeting, so maybe the alarm rang but he was too busy 'conversating' to hear the alarm - I'm getting fed up with this type case, ready to just tell these litigants courts don't exist to clean up their foolish mistakes and a fool and his/her money etc etc - if you want to loan strangers money, get it in writing, notarized even... when MM calls dufus out for foolishly giving D money instead of just ending brief relationship, he explains he actually negotiated the amount down, saying D originally wanted $1200 - yeah, dufus apparently gave her just enough to stick around and have sex when she threatened to walk away from him - MM has dufus look for texts which he says support his story, and switches over to D - D doesn't deny she was asking for mortgage money, difference in her story is that she waited a month and a half before asking - huh, WTH is she yakking about, with this story about how their first actual face to face is where she invites a stranger to come over, she goes to bed while he's in the shower, wakes up and he's looking at her sleep, she gets up and fixes him something to eat, on and on and on, nothing she's saying helps her case or my opinion of these two - and still she goes on and on about the second date (where he unexpectedly shows up at her place with his 14yo son) on and on - and on... MM enjoying this stuff, but I'm about fed up, and when she starts in about how the kid needed permission (I guess from his parole officer) to leave Jersey to visit her place on Long Island because he committed armed robbery (really, pops took time to get permission from parole officer but didn't call ahead to warn D he was bringing the kid on his booty call) I give up and start zipping ahead - uh, I start watching again and MM is reading through the texts - no winners here, both sides sounds bad and MM says she doesn't know which is worse - zip zip - whoa, I guess in the texts D admits she has sex for money, and some nonsense from P that he doesn't want to go second or he wants to watch her have sex with her ex if the ex gives her money before P does - dufus tries to say he was just joking when he sent that text, but dude, you don't get to tell the judge which texts were jokes and which were serious.... anyway, MM  is fed up (I zipped through it, but apparently dufus didn't even know D's name when he gave her the money), and thankfully it's close enough to allotted time to call - forget wasted time and lost wages from both sides - he gets the $250.... yet another loser comes out and says "win some lose some" when she should be running out hiding her face after being asked if she really practices the oldest profession (maybe she didn't realize what MM was calling her)
  2. sick puppy case - skipped before defendant breeder intro completed - P claims she bought puppy, which turned out very sick and was euthanized - says she found out breeder has sold sick pups in past - D intro starts out she's been selling puppys for 40 years... Yada yada I call it and go get a cup of coffee - P gets their jurisdictional max of $3600
  3. oh dear - another dog case this one a groomer case: this one more about whether or not a professional was negligent and caused damage, not an abuse case - this time a groomer injuring a dog resulted in vet bills. P asking for almost $800, which sounds like a lot for a gash requiring 10 stitches - surely she's not after doggy pain and suffering or some sort of inflated nonsense defendant claims P misrepresented dog's temperament - turned out dog was aggressive - doesn't deny dog was injured, but claims vet bills inflated... expect this to be settled by MM going over bill and looking for stuff tacked on.... testimony: ok, part of claim I expect to get tossed out of hand is travel expenses to and from vet after the incident - P will really need to show something to collect travel - ok, mobile groomer really isn't helping her defense that dog was difficult when she claims she usually handles tempermental and elderly dogs (have to comment on D choice of top - really not flattering and I wonder if a better choice would have been to show up in scrubs looking like that's her work uniform than this ugly too tight top) - more she talks more I'm ready to go straight to vet bills - apparently before picking up clippers the dog was bathed and dried, so unless we're talking major matting, I would expect her to have known about any "skin tags" before clipping. Uh, I am NOT impressed with her or her sidekick - D excuse is it "Had to be a skin tag," but as MM points out what skin tag would require 10 stitches - hearsay has vet saying skin tag would have had to be size of dinner plate.... nope, D needed to immediately apologize and offer to pay the vet bill.... well, sounds like that happened, she apologized, dog owner sounds reasonable and realised it was accidental, D offered to pay vet, and P even agreed to accept payments rather than demand everything up front (heck, better than some vets who want money before treatment) - ok, I see part of the problem - dog needed to be anesthetized for the stitches, and owner told blood work was needed first (yeah, my vet always asks me if I want blood work before my cats get knocked out for teeth cleaning - I usually get it for my seniors because it can provide early warning of pending health problems, but don't always get it done - they recommend the labs, but I sign a form and choose to skip it) - ex vet tech defendant says labs were unnecessary, but that isn't her call to make, especially when P says she has evidence vet told her it WAS necessary - heck, if this was an older dog or a new patient I understand a good vet strongly recommending the labs, or it could just be a greedy vet looking to pad bill - either way D opinion means squat without actual expert opinion (2 years experience as vet tech before switching to groomer doesn't cut it) - ah, now, when D realises MM is going to allow the blood work charge, the defense changes to "I offered to pay, but P wanted more money" - huh, what more money? D sidekick chiming in that they offered to pay $750 (false, offered to pay $400), claims to have text showing that offer, but P declined. Nope, best they come up with is mid-negotiations when P considered eating blood lab cost, but then decided why, when that expense was due to the cut. Oh, and looks like she may even get those travel expenses, as she claims to have proof of cab bill because she couldn't take dog on the bus. Yep, P gets everything she asked for - at least partly because D is so irritating. And oh my, in hallterview D side quick quickly establishes he's just as irritating as he declares "the dog was dirty and we're just not going to deal with people like P in future" well, does that mean their mobile dog grooming business is only going to groom clean dogs in future? Oh, and he goes on that the $800 is nothing to him, it's just pocket change - yeah, sure, and while I'm dissing the D and sidekick let me add both of them could do with a doggy shampoo on their greasy hair. Ah, his parting dig is that by "people like that" he means people in the Bronx - yep, no more going to the Bronx for these groomers
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

online dating loan: couple met online

So dating sites, along with Western Union, have become the scammer's best friend. Posting on dating sites is a career choice, because it seems there are no shortage of ridiculous, desperate suckers out there just ripe for fleecing. I just watched a Hot Bench ep with the same thing - SSMOT willingly giving money to some ugly, brokeass Bozo she met online, and after about 6 days. SHE says she's just a nice person. Hahahaha! Okay then. I want to pay my car off. I think I'll register on Tinder right now!

Def thinks her huge, shopworn ass is worth 250$ - well, she wanted much more but plaintiff "jewed" (wrong thing to say to JM) her down to that amount. Best part is when JM asked, "What do you mean by that?" and Big Beastly Bertha starts explaining what "Jewed down" means, just in case JM needs to be educated on that expression. Brilliant, that grifter is. Apparently plaintiff thought that big ass really was worth it too,  because he started her giving her money a few days after they met. Plaintiff is really dumb, to the point where I was wondering if he's medically mentally challenged. I can't believe JM let def ramble on and on and on with her stupid drivel - "He say, "This is my son" and I say, "this is your son?" And he says, "He's 14" and I go, "He's 14?" and on and on and on -  as long as she did.

Plaintiff - you can go out and get a professional hooker - much better looking and younger - for way under 250$ and get an honest transaction. How I wish I had an opinion of myself as high as the revolting, amoral POS def has of herself. I swear I could smell nauseating cheap perfume right through my screen.

42 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

sick puppy case - skipped before defendant breeder intro completed

Skipped. I do not need to hear about disgusting puppy peddlers.

43 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

oh dear - another dog case this one a groomer case: 

I nearly skipped this too, but didn't. The def  - and later her pansy-assed goofy minion -  was outrageous with her attitude. She, with her vast experience of being a vet tech for two years, knows more than a vet and decides plaintiff's dog doesn't need bloodwork before being anesthetized for a very large cut def put on the dog when she was grooming it. I'm certainly not a vet or a vet tech, but having had many senior animals I know for sure they need blood tests before getting anesthetic, to check for function of kidneys and other organs. Def's squeaky little sycophant pipes up that they WERE going to pay the vet bill or some of it anyway, but well, they didn't because they, with their combined great knowledge of veterinary medicine, felt it was too expensive. You idiots  - the dog needed TEN stitches to close the wound you inflicted on the poor thing, and wouldn't need blood tests or surgery had you not carelessly injured it.

56 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Ah, his parting dig is that by "people like that" he means people in the Bronx - yep, no more going to the Bronx for these groomers

Yeah! They are way too upscale to be grooming dogs in the Bronx. Morons.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/20/2019 at 11:47 AM, CrazyInAlabama said:

The couple suing the architect for all of their money back, when he told them additions are never approved the first time by the HOA architectural review committee was bizarre.     The plaintiff wife was awful, and argued with everyone.   I felt sorry for Doug in the hall, when she kept disputing everything he said.     The poor architect certainly had a bad time working with those people.  

She must the kind of people who always know better than the expert or professional they hire to do a job. If she had to undergo a brain operation, she probably would tell the surgeon he is not using the right scalpel or that the angle of the saw is incorrect.

20 hours ago, patty1h said:

The plaintiff seemed nice but dim, and maybe a little needy after losing his wife a few years ago.   He should consider himself lucky he got away with only giving her $600.

It makes me wonder how long it will be before he falls prey to another slimy leech like her.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Skipped. I do not need to hear about disgusting puppy peddlers.

P paid $1800. for the Golden  puppy. I did a five minute check and found dozens of pure Goldens at rescues.  Plenty of puppies.  Max adoption fee was $425.   I just don't get encouraging the backyard breeder/puppy mill industry.😡

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×