AngelaHunter July 13, 2018 Share July 13, 2018 2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said: Then, she snaps back "you're stupid too". LOL!! How I wish he'd have said, "Sticks and stones... " 2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said: If only we could see the mug shot for verification..... JM wants to know how the hell someone can go to the salon after a phone call from the fuzz. I'd be a wreck but I'm not a sociopath used to being called on by police. I guess def. wanted her mug shot to look glamorous. What a disappointment to have to march out to the cop car looking like a... well, dare I say - PsychoKlown? One with a split personality.;) It's so frustrating how TPC respects the litigants when they say not to use their names. How the hell are we supposed to look them up? At least on JJ, their full names, professions ("Says he's a musician') and where they live are plastered across the screen. 1 Link to comment
Guest July 13, 2018 Share July 13, 2018 9 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: How I wish he'd have said, "Sticks and stones... " JM wants to know how the hell someone can go to the salon after a phone call from the fuzz. I'd be a wreck but I'm not a sociopath used to being called on by police. I guess def. wanted her mug shot to look glamorous. What a disappointment to have to march out to the cop car looking like a... well, dare I say - PsychoKlown? One with a split personality.;) It's so frustrating how TPC respects the litigants when they say not to use their names. How the hell are we supposed to look them up? At least on JJ, their full names, professions ("Says he's a musician') and where they live are plastered across the screen. Better yet, Doug should have snapped "Hey bitch, at least I can rent a veHICKle from Enterprise...you can't." And while you jest about the beauty shop stop before the perp walk, maybe she actually did think there was a chance for fame with "Hot Mugshots.com." I agree about last names. And the other thing that gets me is these people come on this show, reveal how they sleep with more people than a tomcat, have kids nonstop, are disabled, live in a one room flophouse (and always on the cusp of eviction) and get in altercations with their competition for the affection of said loser but want to keep the family name pure so as not to embarrass their relatives. I amend my statement that life is hard. For some of these jokers life is impossible. Link to comment
aemom July 15, 2018 Share July 15, 2018 On 2018-07-11 at 9:32 PM, meowmommy said: Unfortunately cell phones have become so much more than ways to call people, so unless you really just make calls, you're pushed into upgrades. The damn apps keep getting "upgraded" by the developers, eventually to the point where they're incompatible with even recent older phones. About ten minutes after I bought the iPhone 6S Plus, they came out with the 7 and now I guess they're up to 10, pardon me, X. I've been fighting Apple trying to force iOS 11 on me because more than half my apps will not work on it, and I assume eventually nothing will work on my phone unless I upgrade the iOS to 11 or 12 or worse. I gave my DD my old iPhone and she can barely get any apps to work on it at all. I can honestly say that I don't have that problem with Android at all. I typed this post on a 4 and a half year old tablet and we usually have our smartphones for about that long before they need replacing. I was away on vacation for a week and was hoping to see some new shows here, but sadly, I guess that's it for the summer. Perhaps they'll rerun the few that I missed for the many Special Reports that have pre-empted TPC over the last year. Link to comment
SRTouch July 16, 2018 Share July 16, 2018 Hmmmmm, busy lately, so not watching and/recapping these crappy reruns golden oldies. Popped in today and don't recognize the litigants in first case, so decided to watch. 1st case: whoa, what kind of impression were these litigants trying to make. Obese P and her equally obese posse, all dressed up... P is black woman and has sort of reverse shunk hairdo with shoulder length yellow blond hair with 3 inches of black showing. She's wearing her version of a little black dress - not a good look when you're that big - especially when it's sleeveless and you have such pudgy, thigh sized, arms. Her case is about bail money, a play station, hand held massager, etc etc she says she loaned her long time bestie, the defendant. Ah, and the defendant... at least I get what she was going for when she chose her ensemble. She chose a conservative gray outfit and has her hair in a bun, little gold cross necklace, etc - almost like a plus sized grandmother librarian all dressed up... ah, but granny apparently needed to be bailed out when she was arrested for robbery and assault. Case starts rather sedately, P soft spoken as she starts out and grammar much better than I feared while Granny librarian stands at her lectern looking all librariany. Something tells me if these two sides start to rumble Douglas will need reinforcements. Wonder if anyone checked P's shoulder suitcase - she might be planning to swing it like a mace with a cinderblock in there. It doesn't take long before P's testimony enters the twilight zone. Seems the 2 besties regularly cash their welfare/SSI checks at same check cashing places - which is where P says she got $3500 to loan D the bail money - yep, she's one of those sainted single mommies supported by Byrd... she tells us she has 4 autistic sons, lives in a shelter, and instead of providing for herself and her children she is spending her kids SSI money on D's bail. MM is NOT happy hearing this, rants a little, but doesn't really let loose - maybe because Blondie is giving her the Ole stinkeye and MM doesn't want P too mad. Yep, already loaned D 35 hundred, D hasn't paid anything back, but P says she loans even more money to D.... uh, convoluted story about loaning D $900 for car repairs, then giving D money to buy a playstation for P and her kids who are still living in a shelter months after the first loan.... case is starting to give me heartburn. Ok, over to Granny librarian.... whoa, she starts waving her hands and I'm afraid she might put out somebody's eye with those talons. Oh dear, Granny must be wearing her court outfit her lawyer bought cuz she doesn't sound smart enough to have picked the outfit to impress the judge. Her testimony makes no sense - what the heck is she talking about when she goes on about gigabytes? She don't recall asking for no money and it never happened, maybe she borrowed five hundred, but P owes her a hundred for something I didn't understand and she isn't even asking for that money back. MM is just letting D ramble on and giving her rope - right up till D calls her "sweatheart." Thankfully, times about to run out on this one. Can't fall back on "texes" - D don't know how to do that electronical stuff, and besides P blocked her.... but D says she sent anything she wanted to say to P through P's mother. Ah, but apparently she knew how to send texes once upon a time, and texts on P's phone support P's version. Andddd, mother happens to be right here, and when MM calls her up mother says when P blocked her and D started going through mom, D admitted owing $4970 but wasn't going to pay until P paid D three hundred odd from a Sprint bill... huh, MM says, that makes no sense. Yep, says mom, makes no sense but that's D way of thinking. MM rules for P. Ok, case sort of a waste... right up until Doug tells P the judge thinks you're stupid and P and her posse just smile since they know they're walking away with the almost 5 grand judgement. 2nd case - dog adoption gone wrong: P claims dog they adopted from Defendant's shelter turned out to be viscious. Says they returned dog, and now not only won't D return their money, but the dog is back up for adoption. D runs a non profit rescue, did a home check and the rescue dog seemed to get along fine with the established dog when they brought the two together. So, adoption goes through, but introduction is big time fail. Within 3 hours of bringing rescue dog, a lab/husky mix, into the home the little resident dog was attacked 3 times.... good grief, first time rescue dog supposedly went after the other dog while both were getting treats - but these idiots didn't separate the dogs and go through a proper reintroduction - instead let the new dog attack/chase resident dog two more times within first 3 hours!!! Ah, actually remember this case now. Adoption paperwork says adoption fee is nonrefundable.... but also says the dog in question is a husky/lab mix. After they return the dog to the shelter, new advertisement lists dog's breed as husky/shepherd mix that gets along with like sized dogs. So, P claims the shelter is quilty of false advertising and therefore fee should be refunded. Hmmmm, and the new ad, which D claims some "junior" volunteer put online, has several inconsistencies, omissions and plain falsehoods when checked against testimony we're hearing. Don't think much of plaintiffs, but sure sounds like D's shelter cut enough corners that I'd return the fee. MM agrees, and orders adoption fee returned. Heck, I might have ordered the refund even without the advertising snafu based on the fact the adoption fell through almost immediately. Love that D is rescuing dogs and running a shelter, but should have just admitted this was a failed adoption and returned the fee instead of coming on TV and making excuses. 3rd case car accident - lane change has D clipping rear of P's older 'vette. P says D was all apologetic at scene and said she'd pay for repairs, but once her cop daddy got involved she changed her story and now says he sped up and tried to block her, which caused the collision. Hmmm, wonder why cop daddy isn't here. According to D the P jumped out of his car at the scene, immediately blaming her, and starting to record her.... not sure that would be a bad idea if he was recording her accepting responsibility and saying she'd take responsibility. Ok, he-said-she-said case with both sides getting a turn to play at white board before we look at police report and damage pictures to see who's telling the truth. Hmmm, sure sounds to me, listening to D's version, accident was still her fault. She talks about changing lanes, having her blinker on, checking her mirror, etc, but then changing lanes and colliding with the rear quarter panel of his car. She's assuming he sped up and pulled alongside her - I'm thinking he was in her blind spot and she saw some other car in her mirror. Either way, he was driving in his lane, and she hit him when she left her lane and entered his. Pictures show damage consistent with his version - doesn't look that bad, but I can easily see it costing the $1600 he's asking for. Not that it matters much, but with no injuries and her accepting responsibility, police weren't called so no police report. Now for the recording (turns out video worthless but audio clear). D is quick to claim she didn't know he was recording. MM says doesn't matter, they're in NY and he doesn't need her consent to record - but recording without consent would be a felony in some jurisdictions, like Florida. Okkkkkk, so recording with or without her knowledge/consent is legal and admissible - and when asked how he thought to record her he says he watches TPC and got the idea watching MM. When we hear the recording she admits he must have been in her blind spot. But at the scene she was already trying to come up with reasons she wasn't at fault - dude should have called cops as soon as she started waffling about how he might have been to close. Ah well, turns out daddy being a cop had nothing to do with case. Her defense changes to she shouldn't have to pay because he didn't "follow protocol" and call the police and go through her insurance.... uh, guess she didn't realise she can call the cops and report the accident to her insurance herself. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter July 16, 2018 Share July 16, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: whoa, what kind of impression were these litigants trying to make. Obese P and her equally obese posse, all dressed up I swear even if I saw this 10 times it would still make my blood boil. Both of them living in a shelter, plaintiff has 4 kids - all of them autistic(!!) - but let someone else feed them because she takes the 3K that Byrd had to shower on her and spends it not on the kids she brought into the world, but gives it ALL (because she's such a nice person!)to the low-down, mouthy, scumbag criminal def so she can buy playstations, gigabytes (lot of movies being downloaded there), a 70$ vibrator (oh, sorry, I mean a "personal massager" which is vital for someone who is in dire circumstances) and wigs and I guess 3" fake nails and jewelry. All the necessities of life. Def has a husband, draped in gold jewelry too and plaintiff thinks it's a good idea to give HIM more of the taxpayers' money to fix his car. What really pissed me off was JM awarding all that money she never earned to plaintiff, instead of directing a check made payable to the welfare/SSI or whatever other gov. entities handed over the cash. I love how the gov. is so generous and never questions when they are throwing MY money down the toilet. There are people out there who really need help and can't get it because of these goddam scamming parasites. They may be illiterate, but they know just how to work the system. Beyond outrageous. I worked all my life and paid back-breaking taxes. Nice to know I can buy a vibrator for a criminal who doesn't "do" electronics because of course those daggers (how much do those cost, anyway?) glued on her fingers don't allow for that, and who doesn't know any better than to call a judge "Sweetheart." Grrr... Time for a taxpayer rebellion, I think. Edited July 16, 2018 by AngelaHunter 5 Link to comment
iwasish July 16, 2018 Share July 16, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: I swear even if I saw this 10 times it would still make my blood boil. Both of them living in a shelter, plaintiff has 4 kids - all of them autistic(!!) - but let someone else feed them because she takes the 3K that Byrd had to shower on her and spends it not on the kids she brought into the world, but gives it ALL (because she's such a nice person!)to the low-down, mouthy, scumbag criminal def so she can buy playstations, gigabytes (lot of movies being downloaded there), a 70$ vibrator (oh, sorry, I mean a "personal massager" which is vital for someone who is in dire circumstances) and wigs and I guess 3" fake nails and jewelry. All the necessities of life. Def has a husband, draped in gold jewelry too and plaintiff thinks it's a good idea to give HIM more of the taxpayers' money to fix his car. What really pissed me off was JM awarding all that money she never earned to plaintiff, instead of directing a check made payable to the welfare/SSI or whatever other gov. entities handed over the cash. I love how the gov. is so generous and never questions when they are throwing MY money down the toilet. There are people out there who really need help and can't get it because of these goddam scamming parasites. They may be illiterate, but they know just how to work the system. Beyond outrageous. I worked all my life and paid back-breaking taxes. Nice to know I can buy a vibrator for a criminal who doesn't "do" electronics because of course those daggers (how much do those cost, anyway?) glued on her fingers don't allow for that, and who doesn't know any better than to call a judge "Sweetheart." Grrr... Time for a taxpayer rebellion, I think. The 4 autistic sons really threw me. I mean come on.,. 4? I’ve read that people are getting kids tested at very young ages and diagnosed as on the spectrum and start getting those benefits, the kids never get retested as they should be and therefore the benefits continue. Many children are slow to talk, walk, converse, have issues with being over stimulated by noise or circumstances, are shy and withdrawn based on how old they are vs what the developmental charts say. Many are all caught with in few years, yet they are not re-evaluated, the money continues to roll in monthly. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch July 19, 2018 Share July 19, 2018 (edited) Another golden oldy from the distant past - when "distant past" translates to March of '17 - far better than 3 or 4 months like JJ reruns, IMHO. I took the time to go back and check the recap/discussion on page 65. This is an episode where first two cases hinge on bad breakups, and third gets skipped when I hear "dog attack." (Oh, and for those who notice - Silly has replaced Furby in my picture.) First case is about an almost married couple fighting over stuff she took/wants after getting kicked to the curb. Nice looking couple - but right out of the gate we find the college girl never learned no grammar.... oh, and to dovetail with recent thread in JJ, we hear about the 8 months she spent in jail after she stabbed previous bf during THEIR breakup - actually, she was well within her rights to stab the dude, besides, she didn't really "STAB" him, she just cut him a little, why he didn't even need stitches or to go to the hospital - well, unless you consider the 1 night he was in the hospital - found guilty after a jury trial so can't even claim her inept lawyer made her accept a plea bargain - instead blames crazy laws regarding assault vs self defense. Didn't watch today, except early part of case where P tries to skip past her earlier conviction/jail time and MM drags the story out of her one question at a time. She does win - though she gets far less than she wants for the illegal lock out since she has no proof of what she wants to be reimbursed for. Oh, and in strange twist, MM awards nada for D's all important xbox/P station and games he says she took and he wanted 2 grand for. When I heard he wanted lock changing fees paid for after the illegal lockout I had to smile. Anyway, dude must have really impressed MM as she gave him zilch and awarded two grand to P with no proof. Second case has stupid P buying kit car from D which is supposed to come with additional parts and "paperwork" - but he doesn't really know what the add-on parts were supposed to be. Breakup aspect of this silly purchase is D's messy divorce. Seems he lost access to the parts when vindictive ex refused to grant access to the storage unit/garage. Course not having access doesn't mean he couldn't sell them, right? Why wouldn't he get to keep the money just because he didn't deliver what he sold? I wouldn't have given P anything and treated him to a life lesson about buying a pig in a poke. MM disagrees as D needs to be taught not to collect and keep money when he doesn't deliver, she orders D to pay $3700+ for parts/paperwork he sold but failed to deliver. (Didn't watch much of case today.) Last case - dog attack - seems D agreed to pay vet bill after her dog broke through her screen to attack P's pup, but when she checked vet bill found P had padded the bill and she decided not to pay - says he wanted her to pay for neutering his dog, among other things - like retraining because poor doggy has PTSD. Yep, poor pooch getting attacked equates to litigation bonanza for another litigant. Actually, jail time gets mentioned during this case, too - ever notice how getting arrested and serving time is a common theme with TV litigants (ok, I served time too, raised my hand and sworn to support and defend, then served 20 years ?). P is explaining he was getting dear uncle out of hoosegow so sis was walking his dog when the attack occured. That's stops his testimony, as MM calls up sister... and I get back to remote with a filled cup of coffee and zip ahead - don't really care to hear gory attack details. From rough justice time and hallterview - P wins - but only vet cost relating to attack, not add ons for training and neuteting.... hmmmm, wonder if pup needs a service dog ? to deal with his PTSD - Or maybe a service cat?... anyway, P gets $800 of the over 2 grand he asked for. Edited July 19, 2018 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter July 19, 2018 Share July 19, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: First case is about an almost married couple fighting over stuff she took/wants after getting kicked to the curb. Alert to anyone here living in NY state: If you get assaulted, mugged, beaten up by your significant other or whatever, make sure you don't try to defend yourself. The new law there is that anyone who defends themselves from violence will be sent to jail for about eight months, while your attacker will go free. I loved this meek, soft-spoken girl with a really bad wig, relating the injustice of her going to the slammer when she was only defending herself by stabbing her former b/f. Of course she has a kid, who probably witnessed this. Def. has a kid too. He was supposed to pick up his daughter but decided he would skip that, so he could keep watch on his place and roll around in bed with his new squeeze. Just "talking" I'm sure. Poe-leece get involved again. I really don't know why JM awarded this woman anything. She just got out of jail when she moved in with def. How could she have all this expensive stuff, including a "fidgerator"? Not a single receipt for anything, other than those she dredged from the bottom of her purse, as JM noted, but still awarded her money. Oh, plaintiff also had a "situation" with someone else she lived with, but none of that is her fault. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: Second case has stupid P buying kit car from D which is supposed to come with additional parts and "paperwork" Oh, those silly boys and their toys! Yeah, I'd pay 17K to some stranger for a few parts, and get nothing in writing, when I know the kit is not complete and said stranger says he can get them, sometime, from his virago of an ex-wife who hates him. I guess plaintiff can use his car for a yard ornament. Edited July 19, 2018 by AngelaHunter 2 Link to comment
meowmommy July 21, 2018 Share July 21, 2018 On 7/19/2018 at 12:01 PM, SRTouch said: Oh, and for those who notice - Silly has replaced Furby in my picture What a beautiful baby. Silly looks like my Tommy. 2 Link to comment
aemom July 22, 2018 Share July 22, 2018 (edited) Fighting off a cold (in July! Made it all through winter without one!), so I plunked myself down in front of the TV to watch the Friday repeat that my PVR taped. Case 1: Son was suing his father for I don't remember what, but he was living in his dad's place with his girlfriend and kids. Dad got a restraining order against the son and son accused dad of breaking the grandson's bike. Son didn't pay rent for 5 months and was being evicted. So much drama and kind of sad. Nobody got anything and both dad and son said that they were done with each other. No "family" spiel from MM at all. Case 2: Woman suing the car repair shop for $5K. Says that her new-for-her-car never had a proper wheel alignment, and so the car never ran properly. Shop did a bunch of repairs over time. She overpaid $1K for it to begin with (according MM and the KBB). Back and forth about all the stuff that the shop did and did not do with another alignment shop kicked in for good measure. She was suing for what she paid for the car and all the repairs she had ever made (ka-ching-ka-ching-BONANZA!), but MM clearly spelled out that she hadn't proved that they had actually done something wrong so $0 for her. Case 3: Three roommates (two women and some guy with tattoos of something all over his neck and skulls on his hands and a very scary demeanor that I would not like to meet in a dark alley - or frankly a lit one either.) They are suing him for unpaid rent. He starts off by using the f-word which impresses MM to no end and there is a lot of back and forth. In the end, they are entitled to the rent because he said in the texts that he would pay. He is also entitled to his share of the security deposit back, but he has to sue the landlord, not the former roommates. So roommates get the back rent and he will have to sue the landlord if he wants. Edited July 22, 2018 by AEMom Too many K in KBB 1 Link to comment
iwasish July 22, 2018 Share July 22, 2018 On 7/19/2018 at 3:01 PM, SRTouch said: Another golden oldy from the distant past - when "distant past" translates to March of '17 - far better than 3 or 4 months like JJ reruns, IMHO. I took the time to go back and check the recap/discussion on page 65. This is an episode where first two cases hinge on bad breakups, and third gets skipped when I hear "dog attack." (Oh, and for those who notice - Silly has replaced Furby in my picture.) First case is about an almost married couple fighting over stuff she took/wants after getting kicked to the curb. Nice looking couple - but right out of the gate we find the college girl never learned no grammar.... oh, and to dovetail with recent thread in JJ, we hear about the 8 months she spent in jail after she stabbed previous bf during THEIR breakup - actually, she was well within her rights to stab the dude, besides, she didn't really "STAB" him, she just cut him a little, why he didn't even need stitches or to go to the hospital - well, unless you consider the 1 night he was in the hospital - found guilty after a jury trial so can't even claim her inept lawyer made her accept a plea bargain - instead blames crazy laws regarding assault vs self defense. Didn't watch today, except early part of case where P tries to skip past her earlier conviction/jail time and MM drags the story out of her one question at a time. She does win - though she gets far less than she wants for the illegal lock out since she has no proof of what she wants to be reimbursed for. Oh, and in strange twist, MM awards nada for D's all important xbox/P station and games he says she took and he wanted 2 grand for. When I heard he wanted lock changing fees paid for after the illegal lockout I had to smile. Anyway, dude must have really impressed MM as she gave him zilch and awarded two grand to P with no proof. Second case has stupid P buying kit car from D which is supposed to come with additional parts and "paperwork" - but he doesn't really know what the add-on parts were supposed to be. Breakup aspect of this silly purchase is D's messy divorce. Seems he lost access to the parts when vindictive ex refused to grant access to the storage unit/garage. Course not having access doesn't mean he couldn't sell them, right? Why wouldn't he get to keep the money just because he didn't deliver what he sold? I wouldn't have given P anything and treated him to a life lesson about buying a pig in a poke. MM disagrees as D needs to be taught not to collect and keep money when he doesn't deliver, she orders D to pay $3700+ for parts/paperwork he sold but failed to deliver. (Didn't watch much of case today.) Last case - dog attack - seems D agreed to pay vet bill after her dog broke through her screen to attack P's pup, but when she checked vet bill found P had padded the bill and she decided not to pay - says he wanted her to pay for neutering his dog, among other things - like retraining because poor doggy has PTSD. Yep, poor pooch getting attacked equates to litigation bonanza for another litigant. Actually, jail time gets mentioned during this case, too - ever notice how getting arrested and serving time is a common theme with TV litigants (ok, I served time too, raised my hand and sworn to support and defend, then served 20 years ?). P is explaining he was getting dear uncle out of hoosegow so sis was walking his dog when the attack occured. That's stops his testimony, as MM calls up sister... and I get back to remote with a filled cup of coffee and zip ahead - don't really care to hear gory attack details. From rough justice time and hallterview - P wins - but only vet cost relating to attack, not add ons for training and neuteting.... hmmmm, wonder if pup needs a service dog ? to deal with his PTSD - Or maybe a service cat?... anyway, P gets $800 of the over 2 grand he asked for. Aren’t service pets required to be neutered anyway? Just to avoid aggressive tendencies or interest in females that might distract them from their duties? I don’t think this was a true service dog, it was an”emotional support” dog. There’s a difference. Even the training he wanted to redo was strictly obedience training, not specialized service dog training. The other woman is at fault regardless, I’m just getting tired of everyone who wants to take their pet where pets are not welcome claiming that they have an emotional support animal. There have to be some requirements/standards that have to be met. Including some kind of vest or tag that should be worn at all times when in public. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter July 23, 2018 Share July 23, 2018 Today's repeat will always be memorable because it's the only time I can remember JM not being able to decipher what the hell a native English speaker was saying. She really had no clue, nor did I. The home health care worker couldn't string together a single coherent, grammatically correct sentence (and seemed to feel that raising her voice and shaking her head madly would compensate for her lack of vocabulary), but both she and def really know all about how to get government handouts and use them as bartering tools - food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing - they were certainly in the know about all that. That someone collecting food stamps and no doubt working under the table is able to buy very expensive sneakers for her baby-daddyless kids - is just one more of life's little mysteries. I'd rather not think about the other repeat of the plaintiff who is kind of a sucker and who felt the disgusting, grasping, ungrateful leech-like defs (especially the hubby who seemed to be the love child of Fatty Arbuckle and Moe of the 3 Stooges) were totally deserving of her loans and her collecting money for them. These two great big healthy adults were on hard times and couldn't even buy their unfortunate offspring any Christmas presents, although they COULD afford cell phones, cigarettes and lots and lots of food for themselves. I didn't agree with JM when she said plaintiff's faith in humanity was destroyed. I think this was a good lesson and wake up call for her in that everyone who is deprived (of cell phones, ciggies and rental cars?) is not necessarily deserving. I'm sure plaintiff's husband, who is a cop and knows all about lowdown, parasitic grifters like the defs, agrees. Link to comment
SRTouch July 24, 2018 Share July 24, 2018 (edited) OK, A NEW EPISODE.... not really, just new to me - this is one of those where my provider messed with the schedule and I saw a rerun while everybody else got to see this gem. @AngelaHunter did the recap for this episode back in May of '17 on pg 70. Here's a brief summary.... case one.... dufus dating one of many feuding sisters (his squeeze was jail bait when he became her baby daddy - anyway, gf now legal, he's 42yo and they're together) anyway, his gf is battling with one of her sisters - when these sisters battle they apparently pick up anything in reach to use as weapons - case has P suing cuz D damaged his windshield with a .... walker? Yep, that's what intro claims... D doesn't deny hitting the windshield, but says it was already damaged because HE punched it in a fit of rage... oh, and she was justified in hitting his car because he "put his hands" on her in a threatening manner. MM spots lady in front row nodding her head, agreeing with everything D says, asks who she is, turns out that's the mommy who raised these "ladies." Later on we hear mommy telling Doug that she sees nothing wrong with her adult daughter's brawling in the street... well, not really, she says it's OK they're feuding now, but eventually they'll kiss and make up (and I'm thinking I hope they wise up before they do jail time or hurt each other - oh, and for some reason the "sisters" song from White Christmas i's playing in my head). And, speaking of hallterview.... P claims D actually stabbed his gf in a different incident. Anyway, not exactly riveting legal drama, but maybe entertaining diversion- wouldn't know, I zipped through most of it. We get a split decision - D admits she hit windshield, but it was already damaged so she doesn't have to foot bill for new glass - instead, she has to pay half. second case: the driver who is suing a customer for scratching his car when she threw her bags in the trunk when he picked her up to go to the train station. Hmmm, is it just me, or does anyone else think dude should have unassed the driver seat and loaded his paying customer's bags in the trunk himself - and I'm not just saying that because she's a woman. Anyway, supposedly she caused damage which will cost over a thousand to fix - yet he said nothing at the time and D says first she knew there was a problem was months later when she was served with papers. Well, actually, he provides a copy of a letter he sent right after the incident... says it's proof he filed a claim when it happened, but all it is is poorly worded ramble with a claim number, but nothing showing a claim was actually filed. MM reads us a portion of the letter, which sounds like some scam, and tells us she wouldn't have answered it herself, so wouldn't expect D to have responded, either. Oh, and that's when we learn the P is not only a driver for hire, he's also a lawyer. Anyway, MM is less than impressed with lawyer/driver and his presentation of his case (of no evidence). No wonder case is tossed, I think any regular viewer would have put on a better case than this lawyer who claims to be a litigator - who needs to drive folks to the train station to make ends meet - in fact I have hazard time believing dude is really a lawyer at all. case #3: P says after his bike accident he stayed with D til he got back on his feet (and got the big check from the insurance). Didn't watch this one after seeing intro. From the talk back on pg 70, D claims she was expecting a cut of the insurance check, but when the money came she signed a promissory note when she got the money.... huh, doesn't she realise an IOU means she owes the dude and isn't getting paid for letting him stay at her place? Zip ahead and hear Doug give the P a hard time for suing D after she let him stay and nursed him back to health - almost tempted to go back and watch case, but it's time to drag out the noise monster (vacuum) and chase kitties around the trailer. Edited July 24, 2018 by SRTouch 2 Link to comment
Florinaldo July 25, 2018 Share July 25, 2018 (edited) Although new to me, today's episode was certainly a repeat. In the case involving a loan from an alleged "swinger" (creative defense from the plaintiff), I could not see a good reason why MM was so interested in seeing proof that the defendant had been fired because the plaintiff sued her employer. Even if that had been the case, I think she was suing the wrong person because he was not the one to fire her, her ex-employer was; he is not the party to sue since he did not make the termination decision. If anyone is liable for a wrongful termination action, it's the company, but she perhaps included it just to have some form of counterclaim. While MM might have felt the need to fill some time and wanted to make that very legal point. But as expected there was no such documentation (as if any employer with a grain of common sense would put in writing that they are firing an employee because a third party she's acquainted with filed a lawsuit for a motive for which she was not responsible). Edited July 25, 2018 by Florinaldo Link to comment
AngelaHunter July 25, 2018 Share July 25, 2018 42 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: I could not see a good reason why MM was so interested in seeing proof that the defendant had been fired because the plaintiff sued her employer. JM: "I guess they didn't really love you." Def: "Whatever." That woman is a opportunistic bottom-feeder who took 900$ from the plaintiff, who seemed like some kind of kooky weirdo. Oh, she didn't want it, didn't ask for it but couldn't give it back because she never saw him again, well, except for the next day. She's just a sweet, innocent party who said, "Oh, wow- he gave me money. Lucky me!" I guess there's no mail service, WU or whatever where she lives, so she was forced to keep and spend the money. Too bad she didn't spend some of it at a dentist. Seems her new hubby is proof of the saying, "Water always finds its own level." I think her employers probably fired her for good cause, but not for the lawsuit. I never saw the case of the woman suing her landlord because everyone in the world should take great care of her because she's a sainted single mother of three,(not her fault!) and the taxpayers should pony up her security deposit because she needs her money for important stuff, like squirting out kids, getting giant chest tats, 50 earrings and fake blue nails. Landlord was credible and plaintiff was miffed when he was rightfully awarded 1000$ for rent and she got zippo. Did we even get the "Wowwwww" whine of the loser from her? I forget. Plaintiff's witness had to be told several times to sit down and shut up as she yelled... something or other. Def said he had a "um um" relationship with her: translation = screwing only. I believed that too. 1 Link to comment
Florinaldo July 26, 2018 Share July 26, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: JM: "I guess they didn't really love you." Def: "Whatever." That exchange came a few minutes before MM queried about a firing document of some kind. I take it as a sign that she was already (and rightly) dubitative about the defendant's story and credibility. I was surprised she did not reprimand her for her "Whatever", a close cousin to the frequent 'it is what it is" which is just a way for litigants to say they do not really care because any monetary award will not come out of their pockets and they have a good chance of sharing the remainder of the award kitty. I was surprised that considering how much she was overeaching for, the tenant did not ask for punitive damage as well as pain and suffering, like so many of the similar parasites who appear as litigants on these shows do, generally claiming the moral high ground. 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama August 17, 2018 Share August 17, 2018 (edited) Classic moment today in the rerun about the bride suing the dry cleaner who cleaned her wedding gown, and it had damage, and the chest area shrank five inches or so. When the judge had the bride put on the original gown, everywhere fit except the chest, and Judge Marilyn asked her "did you get a boob job?" I thought the bailiff was going to fall over laughing. And by the way, if that woman said she didn't enhance anything surgically, then my eyes are deceiving me. I think that's the reason that bride didn't get any money, because she lied. Also, since when are breasts the only thing that get way bigger but you claim you haven't had surgery or gained a lot of weight, and they were awfully perky too. Edited August 18, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
aemom September 1, 2018 Share September 1, 2018 It looks like the new season will start on Monday! http://peoplescourt.com/schedule/season-22/ 4 Link to comment
Schnickelfritz September 2, 2018 Share September 2, 2018 7 hours ago, AEMom said: It looks like the new season will start on Monday! http://peoplescourt.com/schedule/season-22/ Glad you gave us a head's up! My cable provider didn't have The People's Court listed at all for next week. They incorrectly have Harry listed in its time slot. They seem to have the week after correct (new time slot with a rerun in the old one). I will have to set the DVR to tape Harry for a week , I guess. Looking forward to the new season of recaps and snark! 3 Link to comment
SRTouch September 3, 2018 Share September 3, 2018 (edited) ah, new cases at last! Moldy apartment: tenant (P) wants to be refunded rent, plus moving expenses, hotel, plus money spent on test ($1589.22). Landlord (D) says dude just invented mold issue and is trying to get paid for breaking the lease. Doesn't deny test results show mold, but argues test was done in basement - not in P's apartment. When testimony begins we learn tenant lived in apartment for three years. Ah, and dude sounds intelligent and is throwing around the big words - like bronchial (but can't help but notice his missing front tooth). During intro I figured dude was a scammer making up symptoms to get out of lease, like D suggested, but he's telling a good story. Says his breathing issues would disappear after spending a week or so away from the apartment, only to reappear once he returned. Says when he started looking around he noticed the shower surround seal was failing and he suggested to D it bearly replaced. Says D (landlord) sounding willing to do the repairs - but asked P (tenant) to do the legwork of getting estimates. Then D didn't like the estimates, so nothing was done. Ah, just about first thing MM asks is about any doctor visits - nope, no medical reports, says no medical insurance.... ah, sounding like maybe scammer as we get song and dance routine involving workers comp case and his union health insurance being canceled because he stopped paying his portion. Wonder if the workers comp case means he couldn't afford the rent, was already living with gf for weeks at a time, and invented the mold just like landlord's intro suggested.... ooooookkkkkk, dude was a month to month tenant, has no medical evidence of being sick, wants back half a month the rent, hundreds of dollars for the mold test, more hundreds in moving expenses, money for hotel stay (even though he told us earlier he stayed weeks at gf's place). Not looking good for P here after just a couple questions from da'Judge. If I heard right, he moved out mid month two weeks after first notifying the landlord. Ah, but we learn why he needed to stay at a motel... seems he couldn't live with gf because they broke up - on Valentines Day. Ok, dude sounds a bit sketchy - no medical records, and maybe jumping the gun moving out 2 weeks after complaining, but about time to hear about the mold test and find out if D stonewalled his tenant. Ok, first off - dude didn't get the test done until 5 days after he moved out. Ah, more song and dance as MM nails him on his test results. Like D intro said, he had basement tested and it showed unhealthy levels. Dude starts in with fast talking over MM, but she cuts him off and asks about the level in his apartment. Oh, he doesn't want to answer that question. And why did he bring up bad seals around the shower surround if the only high level of mold was in the basement. (Yeah, bathroom was high, but not over the 3 times safe level his intro claimed, in fact if I heard right, still under the danger level. Sooooo, dude doesn't have a medical reports saying mold caused any health problem, and now apparently has no test results showing mold level in apartment was high..... not sure if we even need landlord to say anything. Course, MM is going to let him talk - especially since he brought in poster sized pictures - she even leaves the bench so she can get a close look. Uh, yeah, looks like dude had a dirty, moldy shower surround.... but viola, after he vacated apartment D brought in a cleaner and what a difference in the picture after place was cleaned. But, your honor, says P, landlord must be pulling a switcheroo - that can't be the same shower! And he continues trying to talk over everyone after MM tells him to shut it. Ok, dude has no case - oh, and we learn that he didn't actually move his stuff out of the apartment until the end of the month - so even if place was uninhabitable why would month to month tenant get moving expenses .... ok, no evidence of damage (medical report) and auctioneer talk about why MM should ignore HIS test report summary which DOES NOT show unsafe levels in his apartment ==== no case. Notice in hallterview D brings up the tub surround again - saying he thinks main reason dude wanted to move was the grungy surround - which he says the cleaning lady had sparkling like new after cleaning. exes battle over phone bill: (hmmmm, anybody else questioning P's choices of frame for her glasses? When she came in I was thinking Grouchy Marx. Actually, it wasn't so much her eyebrows, but the black on the upper portion of her frames that caught my eye.) ok, old story - messy breakup of unmarried couple living together with joint finances. P was paying for phone and cut off D's service when they broke up - D says she owes him money for her share of some bills he was paying..... excellent example of why JJ gives these cases the bums rush. I pretty much ignored this one, as I left it running while I went out on the deck to fill the bird feeder (gotta keep the CAT-TV going). Case dismissed another battle after a breakup over finances (but this time they were married): going by her intro, when these two split he took the motorcycle, but she was still on the loan. Now, bike has blown engine, he stopped paying the note, and collection people are after her to pay $2750. Ok, his intro has the chain coming off, some nonsense of her not willing to go through the insurance and for some reason he decides to wash his hands of the bike and stick her with the loan. Huh? A chain came off and the bike is kaput?!? Surely another case where intro is wrong. Ah, another gap insurance case. The bike and the loan were under the wife's name, but when they split he kept the bike and was to make the payments. When the bike is totaled, the gap insurance refuses to pay - he says because she won't do the paperwork, while she says they won't pay because dude was months behind on payments. Sounds like a reason to separate your finances when you get divorced. If the bike needed to be in her name because he had lousy credit, why think he'll be any better when loan is in her name. Anyway, his story matches the intro - chain came off, whipped around and cracked the engine case, bike is a write off. Not buying it - back in my riding days I popped the chain several times, and I guess it's possible it might cause major damage... but what he's saying is that the damage was so bad that bike wasn't worth fixing. Oh, and dude says he knew chain was worn out - says he was on way to buy a new chain when it popped. Really? Never mind any equity, the repair estimate was over the 2 grand amount owed on the bike. Wow, repair costs sure have gone up since I rode, because both these people are claiming the insurance totaled the bike. Nah, I think probably more they dragged their feet putting in the claim for the gap insurance. P says there's 2 reasons gap insurance was denied. One - there was a 30 day time limit, and they dithered around and waited too long. (Turns out claim wasn't made for 4 months.) Doesn't look good for P, but there's still the 2nd reason it was denied - as stated earlier - he was months behind on payments at time of accident. Soooo it may not matter that she was 3 months past the time limit if insurance would have been denied anyway. After commercial break we get into that.... yeah, dude was behind - no wonder he has bad credit, he is in court knowing this was part of the case and he doesn't know how many payments he was behind - or even how much the monthly payments were. Not sure MM looked at it like I did. I was thinking they'd split the $2750 because each litigant caused it to be denied. MM decided the 4 months delay trumped the payment in arrears, so the $2750 is on P.... but as consolation prize, D owes her the 2 months he was behind - so $550. Edited September 3, 2018 by SRTouch 6 Link to comment
Silver Raven September 3, 2018 Share September 3, 2018 On 9/1/2018 at 9:17 PM, Schnickelfritz said: Glad you gave us a head's up! My cable provider didn't have The People's Court listed at all for next week. They incorrectly have Harry listed in its time slot. They seem to have the week after correct (new time slot with a rerun in the old one). I will have to set the DVR to tape Harry for a week , I guess. Looking forward to the new season of recaps and snark! Your local station could have changed its schedule, they do that right after Labor Day. Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 3, 2018 Share September 3, 2018 (edited) All new eps! Yay! First we had the whiney weenie with the high-water pants and who seemed to think he was charming (NOT) suing his former landlord for 1500$ over mold in the apartment and also wants him to pay for his mold inspection, hotel and moving costs. He was getting sick. Terribly sick he was, but no, he has no proof since he never went a doctor for his severe respiratory problems. First he said he couldn't afford a doctor visit, but after JM informed him that his hotel bill and mold inspection were more costly than would have been a checkup, he changed his story. The real reason is that doing so might have messed up the workman's comp case he has going. What a weenie. Landlord has photos that may prove the health problems could have been caused by the weenie himself, when we see huge photos of the filthy, disgusting tub and shower surround. Plaintiff says that must be a photo of someone else's tub. He used bleach! Guess he bought the wrong kind, because that tub has never been cleaned, IMO. I truly understand why the weenie's girlfriend dumped his whiney, millennial "Nothing is my fault! Everyone should pay me!" ass and after she sees this ep, I'm sure she's doubly glad she's rid of him. Then we had ridiculous ex-affianced. Plaintiff is suing her former boyfriend (who starts off by asking JM, "How ya doin'?") over a stupid phone bill after she broke up with him because he spent too much time talking to his baby momma. She didn't want to discuss the money she owed him for the cable bill she was supposed to pay, but turns out that's the deciding factor. She also gets zip. Third was the uber-desperate Ashley, who was positive JM wanted to see her jiggling cleavage. She marries the broke, trollish wee def and decides to have a baby. JM was into her mockery mode when Ashely informs her that after having a baby and stopping work, there's nothing more important for her to put on her credit than a motorcyle for her cherished little troll. He really wanted it and Ashley agreed he must have it, even though they had a new baby and no money for such expensive toys. He then lost his job and totalled the bike by driving it with a bad chain which broke. Ashley had gap insurance, but couldn't be bothered making the claim (of course not only the bike but also the insurance was in her name since hubby-boo either can't get his own or can't afford it)for over three months when such claim had to be made within 30 days. Too late. Keep paying for the wrecked bike, Ashley. Maybe it will teach you a lesson. Or not. Edited September 3, 2018 by AngelaHunter 5 Link to comment
meowmommy September 4, 2018 Share September 4, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: First he said he couldn't afford a doctor visit, but after JM informed him that his hotel bill and mold inspection were more costly than would have been a checkup, he changed his story. The real reason is that doing so might have messed up the workman's comp case he has going. I kinda wanted to swipe at MM when she said, "I believe you, otherwise why would you go to a hotel?" If you think you have freaking mold in your lungs, you don't go to a hotel. You go to a pulmonologist because that shit will kill you dead. Maybe he went to a hotel to shack up with someone. Maybe he's just a chronic leech who's scamming both the landlord and workman's comp. MM needs to stop personalizing cases with my husband this, my kids that, since none of them are litigants, and be objective and do her job. At least she came to the right decision, but she didn't want to. Just gonna complain again about how incredibly old and hideous the set looks. It looks like 50 year old fake wood paneling that hasn't been cleaned in 50 years. Dog forbid Levin spring a few bucks for a decent set. And fuck him for another season of "--her? He hardly knew her." 2 Link to comment
aemom September 4, 2018 Share September 4, 2018 (edited) 16 hours ago, meowmommy said: Just gonna complain again about how incredibly old and hideous the set looks. It looks like 50 year old fake wood paneling that hasn't been cleaned in 50 years. Dog forbid Levin spring a few bucks for a decent set. And fuck him for another season of "--her? He hardly knew her." I missed all of you and your sarcasm over the summer! When Levin came up with the "--her? He hardly knew her," I said: "Seriously?! This is only the first episode of the season. ENOUGH ALREADY!" Kind of boring cases consisting of a lot of excuses. A guy who can't clean, but can complain and make a lot of excuses. A former couple who again complain and have excuses for why bills aren't paid and think the other should pay them. Another former couple who have excuses for why they bought a motorcycle with a newborn and proceed to split up before the baby even crawls. Again, more excuses for why insurance claims weren't submitted. At least there were no dog bite cases! Edited September 4, 2018 by AEMom Typo 3 Link to comment
meowmommy September 4, 2018 Share September 4, 2018 15 minutes ago, AEMom said: At least there were no dog bite cases! I don't know if it was local to my station, but the very first commercial in the first break was for the SPCA, with lots of pictures of mangled animals. Can't get away from stupid humans no matter what. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 4, 2018 Share September 4, 2018 2 hours ago, meowmommy said: MM needs to stop personalizing cases with my husband this, my kids that, since none of them are litigants, and be objective and do her job. At least she came to the right decision, but she didn't want to. Agree, especially when she gets teary-eyed over families who behave towards each other like a pit of rabid vipers, would glady choke each other to death, and she tells them, "Smile on your brother, everybody get together, try to love one another right now." I know she's sincere, but I just think, "Oh, come on!" And Mold Boy? First off, he lied about why no doctor. He was full of shit anyway, with his worker's comp stuff. Reminded me of another litigant who said he couldn't get a job because it would mess up his unemployment payments. 10 minutes ago, meowmommy said: I don't know if it was local to my station, but the very first commercial in the first break was for the SPCA Here too. I had to close my eyes and blindly FF. There are people who need to see this, but I'm not one of them. 2 hours ago, meowmommy said: And fuck him for another season of "--her? He hardly knew her." I'm thankful my FF and mute skills are such I do not hear a single word from that POS. Levin, that joke wasn't funny half a century ago when you were a mere stripling scumbag and it's not funny now when you're a wrinkled-up scumbag. In fact, your disrespectful, dumb, stupid cracks aimed at women only are way less funny now. Your gaggle of lamebrains in the doorway are not entertaining to anyone and just there to make you feel like a Big Man. You asshole. 5 Link to comment
meowmommy September 4, 2018 Share September 4, 2018 1 minute ago, AngelaHunter said: I'm thankful my FF and mute skills are such I do not hear a single word from that POS. I don't have nearly the pinpoint control over this remote that I had at my old house. I stop the FF at what seems like the right place and it goes back a few seconds, and that's how I got to hear the asshat. 43 minutes ago, AEMom said: A guy who can't clean, but can complain and make a lot of excuses. Am I the only one who thought the bathtub story was back-assward? Usually it's the tenant who's screaming that they left the place immaculate, and here the tenant is insisting that he left it looking like shit and that the nice clean bathtub in the landlord's picture is fake news. 6 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: "Smile on your brother, everybody get together, try to love one another right now." Thanks so much for the earworm. Now I can't say you never gave me anything... 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 4, 2018 Share September 4, 2018 56 minutes ago, meowmommy said: I don't have nearly the pinpoint control over this remote that I had at my old house. You have to "Mute" too, so that way even if you stop the FF too soon, you still won't hear him. Such is my hatred of that sawed-off dirtbag I can only glimpse him with my peripheral vision as he screeches and shoves his little microphone in the faces of those clowns outside. I bet Judge Wapner would have shut that (little) shit and his verbal diarrhea down, pronto. 1 hour ago, meowmommy said: Thanks so much for the earworm. Oops. Don'tcha hate when that happens? Is it gone yet or are the Youngbloods still jammin' in your skull? 4 Link to comment
meowmommy September 4, 2018 Share September 4, 2018 1 minute ago, AngelaHunter said: Oops. Don'tcha hate when that happens? Is it gone yet or are the Youngbloods still jammin' in your skull? For me it's 24/7 unless I'm asleep or listening to actual music. I have that song (and their truly wonderful 'Songbird') on my ipod. Sometimes the same songs play over and over as I try desperately to put something else on the internal turntable. There's a CSNY track I removed from itunes because it once got stuck in my head for two days straight and I almost lost my mind. 4 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: I bet Judge Wapner would have shut that (little) shit and his verbal diarrhea down, pronto. I think that's what made Judge Wapner so exceptional. Not that he was cranky and cantankerous, but that he was consistent and never took shit from anyone. You just never know with MM if she's going to rage at a litigant or invite them for dinner, even given the same set of circumstances. 9 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: You have to "Mute" too, so that way even if you stop the FF too soon, you still won't hear him. My old remote not only stopped on a dime, it had a 30 second FF button, which is the exact amount of time of this show's opening credits. 3 Link to comment
aemom September 4, 2018 Share September 4, 2018 8 hours ago, meowmommy said: I don't know if it was local to my station, but the very first commercial in the first break was for the SPCA, with lots of pictures of mangled animals. Can't get away from stupid humans no matter what. Not only did I get that one multiple times, but I also got a children's hospital south of the border multiple times specializing in cancer that was soliciting for donations. I watched the first half hour live while doing laundry and it was so depressing that I was so grateful to take my son to the pool for the last swim day and then to have fun watching the dogs for dog swim. 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama September 4, 2018 Share September 4, 2018 (edited) I can't believe on the rerun where the woman had a flat tire , managed to ruin the rim on at least one, and then has the car back for four days, and then goes on the highway, and the tire eventually comes off, got a penny. There is no way that that happened after four days of her driving highway speeds, and you know she was, and if it was that poorly installed it would have come off the first day. SInce he was still working on the original rim, I'm wondering if it happened on the temporary spare instead of the new tire. I'm guessing her relative/witness was slow to get up and talk was because she didn't want to be caught lying on TV. Judge M. certainly seems to like to give away the production company money to some of these losers without much in the way of proof. Edited September 4, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama 3 Link to comment
Schnickelfritz September 4, 2018 Share September 4, 2018 (edited) 17 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: All new eps! Yay! Hurrah!! I DVR'd the mislabeled Harry episode and got to enjoy the 1st show of the new season!! Thank goodness Harry has been cancelled and everything is coded correctly for next week. The same thing happened last year and it took Spectrum too long to fix it and I missed an episode as (for some reason) the fix confused the DVR and it taped nothing the day of the fix. Hey, I don't think I used the word "fix" nearly enough in that sentence....) I'm still debating whether I want to watch the reruns (we are getting the show twice a day starting next week) and there is only so much I can take of MM and JJ in one day. 12 hours ago, AEMom said: I missed all of you and your sarcasm over the summer! When Levin came up with the "--her? He hardly knew her," I said: "Seriously?! This is only the first episode of the season. ENOUGH ALREADY!" PREACH! Edited September 4, 2018 by Schnickelfritz 3 Link to comment
SRTouch September 4, 2018 Share September 4, 2018 (edited) no trucks allowed: P wants his driveway repaired. Seems neighbor hired D to trim a tree in the neighbor's yard. P says when D arrived to do the job, he parked his heavy truck on P's drive, which damaged the pavement. P wants $5234.80. D says he asked and was given permission to use the driveway, but P says no. D says he's been in the tree trimming business 40+ years, did nothing wrong, and P is just trying to get money for nothing. Doesn't deny the driveway is cracked, but argues it was old and the damage was caused by roots from the tree he had been hired to trim. I figure MM will be off the bench again today, as D brought along a poster board of pictures - unlike yesterday they're not blown up, but more like 8x10's. He got all dressed up for his court appearance, wearing his best blue jeans with a jacket and tie. When testimony starts right off the bat P has a problem - seems he brought along a whole crowd of folks, but left his wife at home and begins his testimony with hearsay evidence of what wife told him when he got home from work. Anyway, skipping past the fact this is hearsay, he says when wife arrived home she found the heavy truck and chipper pulled up into their driveway. Says the damage wasn't visible when wife arrived, because truck and debris was on the drive, but when he got home and trimmers had cleaned up and left the damage was obvious even in the dark. Uh oh, first time MM turns to D to ask a question his answer contradicts his written statement. Well, actually, this was MM's second question - first was asking who "Tim" was, and the answer was Tim is an employee on the job site... oh, and Tim, who according to P was the guy in charge at the work site, is noticeably absent. Oh, back to the contradiction - MM asks D was his truck was on the drive, and he answers no. MM pauses and goes through her papers, then reads aloud part of his statement that argues he had permission to park on/work from the drive. Ok, he explains, what he meant is that he didn't pull the truck and chipper in the drive. The branches and debris were falling onto the drive, and the workers then dragged them over to the truck which was parked on the street. Ok, I can buy that. I was thinking the truck had a bucket lift and would be under the tree, but now I'm thinking a big enclosed truck pulling a chipper which shoots the chips into the back of the truck. Still, though, why the contradiction between "we had permission to park there" and "we never parked in the drive." And, back to the missing Tim.... Tim supposedly talked to P and received the permission - which P denies - and Tim is back in Pasadena so can't answer. Sooooo dueling hearsay testimony from absent witnesses - even though both sides brought along some tag alongs who have nothing pertinent to add. P brought along a picture of the truck - taken back at the lot, not in the driveway. (Actually, picture is of several trucks, so guess it's anyone's guess which truck was onsite.) About now, MM gives up on where truck was parked, and starts looking at estimates to fix the damage - estimates which run from 3 to over 8 grand. She is not impressed with the estimates. Now time to examine D's poster. Seems he went to Goggle Maps and pulled up a picture from 2014 that he says shows the cracks P is saying his men caused.... heck, if that's right guess leaving Tim back in Pasadena makes no difference. MM is down off the bench looking at the poster, then carries the picture over to P and asks WTH!?! First he can't see the crack, then it's, oh I had the drive repaired since the picture was taken 3-4 years ago. Uh oh, I thought case was over, but when MM asks if he can prove those repairs he says yes, he has the invoice from the earlier repair. Yeah, he DOES have an invoice, but it doesn't really prove anything. Ok, now we get into dueling pictures - instead of the normal no-evidence cases, this time lots of evidence (but missing witnesses) just no compelling evidence. Sort of up in the air here - what we have is D going onto P's property with nothing proving he had permission. OTOH, P's own evidence shows multiple crappy repairs done over extended period to the pavement, and now wanting a new sidewalk and driveway. Thing is, case ends on sour note for D when he tries to introduce more hearsay evidence about P asking for inflated estimates for the repair. P was already going to get something, but that bit, and D continuing to argue after MM shut him down, just added to amount P receives. P gets a little over 2 grand - less than the low estimate but way more than the $800 D says was a reasonable amount. Funny hallterview may have been best part of whole case. Loser D crammed a bunch of words into his rehearsed speech about how judge based her decision on fantasy, then gets a dig in when Doug says sorry no time to rehash the case and D says his apology is disingenuous. Then when winner comes out he isn't happy that D referred to the lawsuit as a "gypsy scam..." calls it a racist slur. Case running a little long and Doug turns back to the camera and misses that P's tag along witness tries to shake his hand. As they walk past the camera on the way out the rest of the tag alongside mug it up a little for the camera behind Doug. traffic smashup: intro for P paints this as a road rage type incident - says D sideswiped his car when she misjudged while passing him and trying to make a turn - says he called 911 and gave chase when she kept going - when she finally stopped, he says she came back to his car and banged on the windows, and her passenger/bf ended up in cuffs when cops arrived - wants little over 2 grand. D argues it was P who caused the accident and she says he might have been drunk. Bring out the toys and white board, time for litigants to show how things happened. Ah, Jersey boy - really, your presentation is losing me at the start of your case. MM asks dude where accident happened, and instead of keeping it short and simple Jersey starts fumbling through his notes, pen in hand, and mumbling while he's reading whire looking down with chin on his chest. MM quickly realises this makes for bad TV, so she bring him up to the board - and dummy walls to the board but brings along his notes. Hmmm, we might just fit three cases in if if dude doesn't get it together & quit the note reading. Finally, MM joins him at the board and gets him to move it along (and oh my, love it when camera cuts over to the look on D's face as she watches P's performance). What she finally get from P is that they're sitting at a red light with D behind him - light changes, but he doesn't start moving fast enough - instead of waiting or honking her horn, he says D tried to go around him - about the time he actually starts moving she's cutting in front of him - she doesn't realise he's started forward - they collide.... yeah, I can see that happening - wonder if he was texting/on the phone/or reading while waiting at the light. Drat, here I've been watching without CC because So darn everyone has been understandable - and my station starts with their teeth of the emergency broadcast stuff so that I can read what us being said while the audio goes beep beep. What I read, but don't hear, is that the impact is first time P realises D has a problem with his driving. But, her version when MM asks is that dude had been cutting get her off for a while. She says he purposely blocked her, then when she tried to get around him the collision was caused by him trying to stay in front. Not impressed with either side's version of accident, as I could see either side being true. Listening, both sides could be telling the truth as they see it - but both were, in their own versions, at best, poor drivers. I have to agree with MM, D's version of both acting stupid cutting around and trying to stay in front is more believable than his story of daydreaming at the light until they collide. Wonder what the police report says, and why exactly was the bf cuffed. No matter how accident happened, once they collided D and her passenger acted out of control. Ah, but how badly out of control is also a question. According to P, when cops arrived on scene they saw D banging on his window and instructed D to back off - but they didn't put that in the report. After D backs off, P says the bf is still yelling threats - in front of the cops - about beating him up. Again, didn't make the report - and it turns out bf was never cuffed or arrested. Geez, more exaggerations and bending of facts with both the intro and P's story. Again, could have happened either way - but I'm inclined to believe D. Course believing D doesn't mean she's off the hook - even in her version she was acting the fool, using the turn lane, trying to go around P at the intersection. I'm thinking this is shared blame case - P was either distracted (according to his version) òr playing games, and D (from her testimony) was acting the fool... but I see legal liability falling on D. Ah, now that MM has come out and said that D caused the accident with her illegal use of the turn lane to try to get in front, for first time D stops being believable. She says she didn't realise there had been a collision - yet pictures show obvious collison that she had to have felt. Ok, no matter what came before, MM says actual impact was D's fault, so she pays the low estimate of $1673 and change. I think this is first "it is what it is" of new season as the litigants leave the courtroom. did he buy a truck or not: story here is that P bought a truck that he was going to use as a mobile snack stand. Says after money changed hands, seller said it needed work, so pick it up later.... but later never came, always needed more repairs that he hadn't gotten around to. P wants all kinds of money, not just the money that he paid... geez, he even wants a guesstimate on what he might have made had the junker been running and business cards he made up for the business he never started because the truck never ran. As if that's not bad enough, MM catches him in a lie about how much money actually exchanged hands. Stripping out all the nonsense - this is about a used car sale and whether it was an as is sale or was there a warranty when seller agreed to make repairs before buyer took delivery of rust bucket. Ah well, I zipped through most of this case and just caught hits and pieces. Good thing they did that emergency broadcast test, otherwise I would have had to start over for this one.... actually, CC isn't much help as I still don't know WTH P thought he was going to do with the truck. Actually, both litigants showed poor business practices. P was trying to start up a business with very little idea what he needed to do. Ah, but D apparently has an ongoing business - yet writes PAID IN FULL on a receipt with a notice that there's a balance still owed.... which is where MM catches P lieing about how much money changed hands. Not to be outdone, when MM turns to D she catches him in a lie. Dude says neither he nor his worker did anything wrong - but in his written statement he says the transmission needed to be replaced because his worker filled it with the wrong type of fluid (oh dear, maybe the reason he didn't want the name of his business put out there on national TV is that the guys he has fixing vehicles use the wrong fluids when topping off transmissions). Ok, sounds like one of those dirty hands cases. JJ would give the P the boot, but I'm inclined to call it a wash - let D keep the truck but order he return the money he agrees P paid towards the vehicle. Ah, switcheroo time, they have a written contract - always nice when there's a contract. Right there in the contract, it says vehicle is to be ready for delivery within 30 days of time it's paid for. Soooo, dude had paid most of the bill - but still owes $500+. Lousy contract, I wouldn't have agreed to wait 30 days after I finished paying - but that's what P agreed to. Sooo, no deadline on when money has to be paid, just that it has to be delivered within 30 after it's paid for - and it's still not paid for. Case is premature, P has to wait till 30 days after he's paid and MM has already decided he owes $500. Oops, but we can't give P more time to pay - seems after they started fussing D finished fixing the truck and sold it to someone else. MM says she was going to tell P he had to take the truck rather than getting his money back - but now she says he gets the refund (sort of back to what I said I would do). Not the full amount he's claiming today, but the amount both agree he paid.... no hallterview for this one Edited September 4, 2018 by SRTouch 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 4, 2018 Share September 4, 2018 I was just coming to ask: "Where is SRTouch with the very detailed and awesome recaps?" Yay, you're back! I was unable to properly carry this burden. Whole bunch of scammer and liars today. 12 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Seems neighbor hired D to trim a tree in the neighbor's yard. Plaintiff seemed a bit shady on first glance although he redeemed himself and later proved his case, but def was definitely shady and slimy and an utter and perfect arrogant asshole to boot. P's wife saw the whole thing, but oops, she didn't want to be seen here I guess, to back up her hubby's hearsay. Def's worker who was there and knows what happened also didn't make an appearance, and for good reason no doubt. Anyway, yeah - in the hall loser def. heaps a little primo sarcasm on Doug, because Doug doesn't express appropriate sorrow that lying asshole lost. Why should Doug be sorry? He's not the moron who wrecked someone's property and lied about it, and what the hell was on the back of d's pants as he walked out with his overly-bleached wifey trotting behind him? 17 minutes ago, SRTouch said: about the time he actually starts moving she's cutting in front of him - she doesn't realise he's started forward - they collide.... yeah, I can see that happening - wonder if he was texting/on the phone/or reading while waiting at the light. No, he hit her because she pulled into the left turn lane beside him and then when the light turned green and P started to move (naturally assuming she was turning left) she didn't turn left but tried to cut him off and hit him. Completely her fault and I just bet her little screechy beau (or whoever he was) was screaming threats too. Def. was well-prepared for anything, I guess, with her big pink backpack strapped firmly in place. I guess the show's producers must have the checked the contents before letting her wear it during the case. I got distracted trying to imagine what was in that is of such immediate and urgent importance she couldn't come in and go for 15 minutes without it. 21 minutes ago, SRTouch said: did he buy a truck or not: story here is that P bought a truck that he was going to use as a mobile snack stand. Two more lying, small-time scammers. Def. was way worse, IMO. But I think I might try his method with Toyota. I'll call them and assure them I'll pay the balance on my car and I just know they will then give me a receipt that says "Paid in full" because I promised I would, right? This show is so educational. I never knew that a vehicle which sits for 3 months automatically needs a new transmission! Horrid little troll thought he could keep plaintiff's money and then had the hubris to sell the junkpile again. 7 Link to comment
Schnickelfritz September 5, 2018 Share September 5, 2018 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: and what the hell was on the back of d's pants as he walked out with his overly-bleached wifey trotting behind him? They were the pockets on his butt ugly jeans 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: his apology is disingenuous Actually he said "disingenuine comment" Just like a true TPC litigant. 3 Link to comment
meowmommy September 5, 2018 Share September 5, 2018 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I was just coming to ask: "Where is SRTouch with the very detailed and awesome recaps?" Yay, you're back! I was unable to properly carry this burden. Dahling, did you miss yesterday's recap? It's the last post on page 111. It was hysterical watching MM cutting back and forth between plaintiff and defendant in case 1 and Douglas racing to keep up with her. The picture of the sidewalk shows an ordinary residential street; there don't appear to be any parking restrictions. Why would the defendant's crew even want to park in the plaintiff's driveway? Almost no contractors or workmen ever try to park in their own client's driveway, much less a neighbor's. And who would ever give permission? Too many liability issues when strangers are on your property. Pretty smart of the absent wife thinking to send along the wedding video that shows the sidewalk (and a million cars parked in the street). 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Def. was well-prepared for anything, I guess, with her big pink backpack strapped firmly in place. I guess the show's producers must have the checked the contents before letting her wear it during the case. I didn't even notice it until you pointed it out. But then I only watch with half an eye anyway. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch September 5, 2018 Share September 5, 2018 (edited) uncle spinning in the grave: ??? waste of time case - one of those cases where dear loved one (P's uncle) dies and a lawsuit is filed over his stuff. This time, the P is suing uncle's friend of 40 odd years, saying the friend spirited away the best stuff from uncle's condo before she was able to grab it. D says he was helping the family when he moved belongings into the garage so that uncle's place could be painted. Admits taking a few keepsakes (grandfather clock, nutcracker, ceramic kitty, a couple tools). He's willing to return them, even has two boxes of stuff he brought to court, but P is a few bricks short suing him for 5 grand. Story here is that when 80 yo uncle died the niece (P) was put in charge of his estate. The friend (D) was involved with settling the estate and P gave him access to over 6 grand in uncle's bank account to help get the condo ready for sale (also listed as a beneficiary in the will and received money from an insurance policy - but that isn't part of what she's suing over.) Guess niece was not local, while the friend was, so made sense to let him handle things. Even before uncle died a painter, found by D, had been given access of the place to begin work while uncle was hospitalized. So, when he dies, several folks have keys to the place. When P, as the executrix of the will, comes to check things at the she finds stuff boxed up and in a garage while painter is doing his thing inside. Says she notices things missing - not sure how she can prove D took the stuff - or the value of the missing items. It's not like she has an inventory of what was there - no she's saying stuff is missing based on old pictures - pics taken back in 2013... heck, is that a valuable antique in the picture or a $5 repo from the Family Dollar Store - even if it is a valuable antique, what's to say uncle didn't sell/pawn it back in 2014 when he was updating his condo. P provides us with a few laughs as MM goes over her list of missing items - after she admits she has no way of knowing if Uncle disposed of the items or just who took them. Oh my, listed on her list of missing items, a three hole punch, 4 pounds of sugar, canned goods - don't forget the 2 rolls of paper towels. Ok, when P starts laughing at herself while listening to MM read her list it's time to zip ahead. Also, seems in her written statement she admits there's still boxes of stuff she hasn't gone through - so she's suing asking for stuff she may have but hasn't bothered to unpack before filing a lawsuit. Part of the problem is that D paid the painter in full and the work was never completed. Ahhhh, the painter.... seems he was friends with D, but they had a falling out and D took out a restraining/keep away order on him. Like I said, P has a tough job proving D took any of the (maybe) missing property - she may have had a better case on the 3 grand D admits giving painter for job never completed - not the whole 3 grand as everyone seems to agree painter did some work... ah, but she's not suing for that, she's after the missing stuff. D seems like sort of a wimp, claims he was being pulled in all directions - being told not to pay painter anything, being told by painter he wasn't going to do anything unless paid in full. I zipped ahead through the last 5 minutes when everyone - including P - starts laughing at her list of missing items. Case was dismissed. All in the family car deal fail: ? ?? - Something tells me to turn on CC, but truth is I didn't watch enough to tell if these were mumblers with bad grammar - bro buys junker from sis - turns out it's a lemon - wants to undo the deal and get back his $1500 - family feud erupts when she refuses. Seems feud got heated enough that cops were evolved keeping the peace. Back story is that these folks were not close before the car deal, but reconnected after a death in the family. Oops, finger got stuck on the FF button - I zipped right through this tired old story after first commercial break. Stopped for hallterview... looks like bro wins - not because the car is a lemon, but because sis sold him a car she didn't own... not worth it to go back and watch tenant wants out of lease:??? interesting how landlord ends up losing this one - like sis from last case, P here is decked out ready for clubbing - except her clothes should not be sold in her size. Last case's Sis had on tight outfit which emphasized her belly roll, now this plaintiff has on knee length black outfit and tall spikey red boots which really showcase her chunky legs. P wanted out of lease because of noisy, late night partying, and mail stealing neighbors. Landlord let her break the lease, but refused to return full deposit.... sounds to me like landlord gave her a break. Oh, and definitely need CC for this one. Ah, if what I'm reading (only understand a tiny bit of what P says), if there was ever a case where a tenant should be allowed to get out of a lease it's one - apparently she saw a neighbor breaking into her mailbox, called the cops, he's arrested, she starts getting harrassed, car vandalized, even a gun was pulled and stuck in her stomach by neighbor's bf when neighbor received eviction papers. Seems before landlord let her break the lease she even offered to let her move to a apartment in a different building. So landlord let her out of the lease and returned part of the deposit - there is always some cost involved for the landlord when a tenant leaves, so is it too much for landlord to keep $300 from the deposit. Ah, but when D landlady starts talking it quickly seems she's something of a slumlord - not that she neglects maintenance (though she may), just that she knowingly rents to low income, semi-transient people and is VERY familiar with eviction process and non payment of rent. She explains she doesn't have tenants put down a security deposit - instead she collects 1st and last month rent (because so many of her tenants stiff her on that last month of rent when booted to the curb). When asked what happens if tenants pay the last month rent and trash the place, she answers, "I'm screwed..." something tells me this lady knows her niche and her tenants - has a concealed carry permit and goes armed when she goes to her properties. Ah, but in the end her calling it 1st and last month rent instead of a security deposit bites her. Seems there was a break-in and door was damaged. If she was calling it security she maybe could withhold money for cost involved in letting tenant out of the lease and damage... instead, she calls it rent, and she can't keep rent money for a period when tenant wasn't renting the place. Tenant gets her $300. Edited September 6, 2018 by SRTouch 1 3 Link to comment
Katy M September 5, 2018 Share September 5, 2018 18 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Ah, but in the end her calling it 1st and last month rent instead of a security deposit bites her. Seems there was a break-in and door was damaged. If she was calling it security she could withhold money for cost involved in letting tenant out of the lease and damage... instead, she calls it rent, and she can't keep rent money for a period when tenant wasn't renting the place. Tenant gets her $300. That doesn't really make sense to me. Even if the landlord doesn't collect a security, or even of a security deposit, doesn't mean they have to be out damages. You can sue for damages above and beyond what the security deposit was for, so if there was damage tenant was responsible for, that still should have come out of that last month rent, instead of her returning the rent and then turning around and suing for the door. I guess she should have countersued, then she would have won the countersuit? 1 Link to comment
SRTouch September 5, 2018 Share September 5, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Katy M said: That doesn't really make sense to me. Even if the landlord doesn't collect a security, or even of a security deposit, doesn't mean they have to be out damages. You can sue for damages above and beyond what the security deposit was for, so if there was damage tenant was responsible for, that still should have come out of that last month rent, instead of her returning the rent and then turning around and suing for the door. I guess she should have countersued, then she would have won the countersuit? Hmmmm, couple things to think about here. First, landlord knew the statutes well, and was playing with wording/intent of the law by calling it rent rather than a security deposit, the 7 month versus 6 months term of lease to avoid taxes, etc... she even acknowledges it with has her answer when MM asked her about possible damages ("I'd be screwed!"). Secondly, I'm not sure if she would even have a case for damage. As a longtime court TV viewer - with absolutely zero actual legal schooling - I recall more than once hearing that a litigant can not be held liable for a third party's criminal act. So, not sure this tenant could be held liable for damage caused by someone kicking in her door and stealing her property - remember she had a police report and photo evidence of the break-in, not to mention D accepting that there WAS a break-in. Sooooo, I think, had D sued for damages she would have lost - but might have won a suit charging for expense of letting P out of the lease.... even that would be iffy with tenant arguing - and having evidence (and MM saying) - that apartment/neighborhood was unsafe. Sounds like MM was hinting that a housing court judge would have ruled in favor of tenant getting out of the lease. I think end result of any countersuit would be what landlord/property manager said - she'd be screwed. All in all, I think P was portrayed as a sympathetic litigant (though in hallterview D hinted there were things she COULD have said that would have changed that). I think MM was primed and looking for a way to refund the money. As soon as D mentioned "damage" it was over. Edited September 6, 2018 by SRTouch 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama September 5, 2018 Share September 5, 2018 The former tenant certainly attracted a lot of trouble, didn't she? I wonder what door kicker was looking for, and why so many people wanted into her mailbox, and to threaten her? My guess that she wasn't as innocent as she claimed. I'm betting she had a really good idea who broke in, and wonder if she really is in a nicer place now? I think the six month rental is because of the temporary, no background check rentals. They don't attract the best residents (I lived in a week-to-week furnished rental for almost two months, and it was seriously interesting), and all kinds of wild and crazy things happen there. Sidewalk tree crusher from yesterday-I bet plaintiff's wife didn't come on the show was because she did notice something going wrong with the tree people, and didn't want to admit it. There is also no reason for the tree people to be there that long for branches that were hanging over the p.'s property, they should have taken the branches down first, ground them, and then gone to the d.'s property to do his part. I'm guessing that they were dragging branches to the p.'s property, because it was harder to get them out of the neighbor's yard, but plaintiff's yard was unfenced. 1 Link to comment
meowmommy September 5, 2018 Share September 5, 2018 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: Stopped for hallterview... looks like bro wins - not because the car is a lemon, but because sis sold him a car she didn't own... not worth it to go back and watch The sister claimed she offered to give the money back, and the brother said basically, why would I be here if she had offered. Then he acknowledged she offered to give half the money back. And a long convoluted discussion about title and registration. Sis gave big long runaround answers about whether she had title to the car and if she had registered it. First she claimed she had a temporary registration for a year, and then, no, it wasn't registered because it sat in the back yard, unused, and then she presented a title but it was in the name of the previous owner. You could just see all the rabbit holes she went down with each of MM's questions. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: P here is decked out ready for clubbing - except her clothes should not be sold in her size. What the hell do we call the getup the defendant showed up in? Yeah, that's how I'd want to be seen in a) court and b) national TV. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: getting harrassed, car vandalized, even says a gun was pulled and stuck in her stomach by neighbor's bf when neighbor received eviction papers. Seems before landlord let her break the lease she even offered to let her move to a apartment in a different building. So landlord let her out of the lease and returned part of the deposit - there is always some cost involved for the landlord when a tenant leaves, so is it too much for landlord to keep $300 from the deposit. Way back in my renting days, I was harassed and my car vandalized by an upstairs neighbor. The police would do nothing because I didn't witness the vandalism. The property management let me out of my lease but kept my security. It just felt like insult to injury, but that's the way life goes. At the same time, in this case, MM blamed the landlady because some of her other tenants were assholes, and that didn't seem right, either. 1 Link to comment
Cobalt Stargazer September 6, 2018 Share September 6, 2018 2 hours ago, meowmommy said: What the hell do we call the getup the defendant showed up in? Yeah, that's how I'd want to be seen in a) court and b) national TV. I was wondering that myself. Nice-seeming, articulate lady, but what was she wearing? Maybe she was going to a club with the plaintiff afterwards. 1 Link to comment
SRTouch September 6, 2018 Share September 6, 2018 (edited) 1.??? Drunk fools duke it up at family get together demonstrate why cops/ERs are busy on holidays. Entertaining for about 5 of the 25 minutes it was on. 2. ??? yet another businessman comes on to showcase lousy customer service 3. ???? dog park attack skipped sibling rivalry taken too far: two brothers sitting around the table pounding back the booze on Christmas Day - one bro clocks the other - punchee-bro here suing for 5 grand for medical bills, including reconstructive surgery, pain and suffering.... according to puncher bro, the reason he hit his bro was because he was protecting a sister from VERY drunk punchee. I'm getting a fresh cup of coffee so I'll be able to watch this family counseling session by MM... oops, coffee may not be enough once P starts his story. Just how many times does dude have to say everybody was having a good time, anyway? Don't think dude is drunk here, but I kind like popping him as he gets animated telling his story to get him to take it down several notches. Anyway, not only is it Christmas, but P is a Christmas baby, so his sister is throwing a Xmas/BD party. Then a "gang banger" cousin from Compton (dude even does air quotes) starts drinking from HIS bottle and eating HIS food, so he tells cuz to get out of sis' house. Guess bro never learned to share. Not only does he not want to share his stuff, but he claims ownership of sibling's and his mom's stuff. First he says he got into a kerfuffle with gang banger cuz and told him to get out of sis' place. Drunk (D) bro's drunk gf steps in and tells drunk (P) to calm down - drunk (D) bro decides to take drunk (P) home to mommy's house (yeah, P still lives with mommy) - drunk gf jumps out of car and uses remote to lock the door as she runs into HIS property (actually mommy's house)....... ok, enough, without a flowchart and visual aids I'm lost and gonna stop trying to recap this mess and zip ahead. To summarize - bunch of drunks get into major kerfuffle - going by P's story he had already gotten into it with 2 people (gang banger cuz and D's gf) before drunk driving D bro socked him. No clean hands here, just an example of why first responders hate holidays and dealing with drunks. I stop FF in time to hear MM reading the police report... ok, not one punch, seems D bro gave his bro a serious beat down, continuing to punch P after knocking him to the floor. Hmmmm, looking at D as MM reads mommy's statement he's almost got a smirk on his mostly expressionless mug (mug as in mug shot - I want to ask about past arrests and if that's his normal court room expression.) I can get getting drunk and doing something contrary to anything you'd do sober, but this guy isn't phased listening to his mother describe on he kept beating his brother's face in after he knocked him on the floor. MM is not happy with him, and awards P everything he asked for... then again I want to punch idiot P bro, as, after the ruling and MM starts to walk out the idiot raises his hand and shouts out that he wants to add one thing - geez, dude won and still shouts out - "he's the animal - he's the animal!" Hallterview has both bros declaring how much the LUV each other! Case ran long - but then I zipped through at least half of it. new cabinet broken by delivery guys: (need CC for this one) P says delivery men broke the glass in her new cabinet while delivering it. Store promised to make it right, but are still giving her the round around 5 months later. Store guy (D) doesn't deny his guys broke the glass. Says he ordered new glass (brought it to court) and has made numerous attempts to schedule a time for someone to go to P's house and do the repair. He's turning it around, saying it is the P giving him the run around and not answering her phone when he tries to schedule the repair. Okkkkkkk, simple case, judge has staff schedule a time for the repair. NEXT!!! Oh, this isn't JJ, so we get to hear these folks for the next 30 minutes. So, anyway, P asking for $500 - but about half of that is the infamous "time missed work." Actually, if she can prove it she might get missed work - she says she took a day off to be home on the day cabinet was scheduled to be delivered. To add to her frustration, she took off on the specified delivery date and delivery guys were no call/no show and no one answered when she called. She goes to the store on her next day off after playing phone tag for a couple days. Story she gets is not exactly kosher (had to say it). Seems they didn't make any deliveries that day because it was a Jewish holiday? Come on, the store scheduled the delivery two weeks after she paid in full (with her debit card). You would think whoever scheduled the delivery would be working off a calendar that would be marked "no deliveries today" - in the two weeks between purchase and scheduled date, no one called the customer to reschedule - not to forget, after the missed delivery, the customer has to physically come to the store to find out about this Jewish holiday nonsense. Heck, putting aside fact that even if she has voicemail, they could have sent a message snail mail in two weeks. HOKAY, new delivery date, cabinet DOES finally get delivery - but guys break a glass panel in the door.... oops, you'd think, realising they messed up with the prior date, the store would bend over backwards to expedite repair..... but nooooo, more dithering around and stalling. Anybody else think it may be because they've been paid in full and have put this lady on the back burner. (When I made my last big furniture purchase, a Pulaski bedroom set, the store rep had no problem accepting partial payment with full payment made upon delivery/set up/inspection. Heck, she brought it up before I did, saying how much I needed to pay up front because it needed to be special ordered.) Ah, no bowing and scraping and "we'll get this fixed right away" with an apology here. 5 months pass between time of damage and when she filed the lawsuit. Again, even if you buy D intro where he made numerous calls and she wouldn't answer, the US Postal Service still delivers. Ok, D has been waiting patiently, and now is his chance to redeem himself. Ah, but he doesn't help his case much when he opens with how great a person P. Dude, the fact you think she was a pleasure to work with and has been so very patient with your screw ups does nothing to excuse making her wait months and months for something that should have been a quick fix. Oh, and it does NOT help your case when you start arguing and talking over the judge when she asks why it took so freaking long and a lawsuit to get his attention. (And bringing the panel to court is bogus grandstanding. Why would P accept that as a settlement? It could be a quarter inch too small - and why expect her to install the glass? She paid you 5 months ago and is still waiting!) Ah, time for a switcheroo! Dude presents 5 pages of phone records, and sure enough he's made numerous calls to number P confirms is her phone. Hmmmm, still, for us old fashion types, there's still snail mail - for up to date folks, you can get a free app for your phone that records your call that would prove you called her phone and left message. Uh oh, he had a case going there, then he messes up and admits that he was calling and hanging up when she didn't answer. Didn't bother to actually leave a message until - if I heard correctly - the last time he called - which is what? Five months after botched delivery? Ah, but he says, everybody has caller ID, when she saw a missed call she should have known to call him. Ok, I know that's how many folks roll nowadays, but I, for one, don't call back missed calls... well, maybe if I get numerous calls from the same number, I'll get curious and call to ask who they're trying to reach, but otherwise, a missed call with no message gets deleted/ignored. Little rant from MM about the 23yo learning to leave a message, then time's up and time for ruling. P doesn't want to have to depend on D's repairman to actually show up, so MM orders that P take delivery here, and that D pay $150 for someone of D's choice to install it (just hope it actually fits and matches rest of glass). No time off money - just the $150. yet another case which begs the question - why the HELL would this businessman come on national tv instead of a quick settlement which would bury this from the public. 3. Skipped Edited September 6, 2018 by SRTouch 6 Link to comment
SRTouch September 6, 2018 Share September 6, 2018 18 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said: I was wondering that myself. Nice-seeming, articulate lady, but what was she wearing? Maybe she was going to a club with the plaintiff afterwards. I just took that as casual dress for someone from Miami. I remember being surprised when I went to church with some San Diego relatives and saw most of the younger crowd in shorts. My young cousin told me that was normal - he said he went to (high) school in shorts and flip flops. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 6, 2018 Share September 6, 2018 50 minutes ago, SRTouch said: sibling rivalry taken too far: two brothers sitting around the table pounding back the booze on Christmas Day Happy Birthday and Merry Christmas all at once. Gang bangers, vicious baby mommas and overly touchy baby daddy causes chaos. Plaintiff is a 30-year old man who lives at home to take care of his decrepit, "old lady" 54-year old mother. JM, a little annoyed, was right in saying that someone 30 shouldn't think 54 is elderly, but when kids live with parents they never grow up, no matter how old they are. Not sure who is taking care of who since it seems baby brother lives in little bedroom for free with Mommy. I was waiting for JM to tell plaintiff to lower his voice, knock off the histronics and stop blabbering over her. He was also too drunk to figure out how to open a car door I"m starting to see why he lives with Mommy. Baby momma, who must be a nasty piece of work, precipitates Beatdown of Bro by claiming he punched or pushed her "to get her out of MY home." Nope, it's Momma's home, ancient as she is. Bif! Pow! Whammo! Bro needs new stainless steel (or titanium?) eye socket. JM didn't even bother with much of a "All you need is Love" speech. Not for THIS family. This case pleased me as I heard I'm not the only one to use the word "savage" to describe a litigant. JM did it too. I feel vindicated! 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Dude presents 5 pages of phone records, and sure enough he's made numerous calls to number P confirms is her phone. Hmmmm, still, for us old fashion types, there's still snail mail - our for up to date folks, you can get a free app for your phone that records your call that would prove you received her phone and left message. Uh oh, he had a case going yhere, then he messes up and admits that he was calling and hanging up when she didn't answer. Yes. How much time would it have taken from his uber-busy schedule to leave a 30-second message, saying, "This is ___Store calling. Your glass is ready."? I mean, he was right on the whole, but his 23-year old arrogance is something he needs to tone down or learn to give up as he (hopefully)matures. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: 3. Skipped I actually watched this one. More people at dog parks who are too damned lazy to walk their dogs, who know nothing about dogs as they throw toys around over which strange dogs may compete and never, ever realize that these are dogs (Predators/carnivores with strict hierarchy) and not dancing unicorns or Care Bears. Someone throws a ball for plaintiff's dog. Def's dog sees it, wants it and goes and attacks P's dog to get it. Vet bills ensue. Def. is an asshole, stating, "I saw one puncture mark and don't understand why that would cause 7 stitches." That's because you are neither a vet nor do you have a clue about dog bites. The surface puncture is nothing - like the tip of the iceberg. The real (and often massive) damage occurs unseen beneath the skin, you asshole. 6 Link to comment
meowmommy September 6, 2018 Share September 6, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: JM, a little annoyed, was right in saying that someone 30 shouldn't think 54 is elderly, but when kids live with parents they never grow up, no matter how old they are...... I was waiting for JM to tell plaintiff to lower his voice, knock off the histronics and stop blabbering over her. I couldn't believe MM didn't tell him to take down a notch or twelve. She's done that often with far less provocation. I haven't forgotten how she jumped all over that poor personal trainer for almost nothing, but this guy is flailing around and screaming over her and she says, softly, "Don't do that." And a "blood pressure attack?" Bwahaha. Mommy must be so proud of both her spawn. Notice she couldn't be bothered to show up. I've got my 28 year old back with me, and I'm painstakingly working on getting her into adulthood. Pretty sure she's not getting drunk and punching people out, though. 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: Ah, but he says, everybody has caller ID, do when she saw a missed call she should have known to call him. Ok, I know that's how many folks roll nowadays, but I, for one, don't call back missed calls... well, maybe if I get numerous calls from the same number, I'll get curious and call to ask who they're trying to reach, but otherwise, a missed call with no message gets deleted/ignored. I'm anal enough that when I get a call I don't recognize, I decline the call and Google the number. Most of the time, of course, it's a bullshit call. Seems to me, though, that this lady, if she supposedly is playing phone tag with the store, ought to have recognized the number immediately. I hate that our old fashioned landlines were equipped with name and number caller ID, but now if you want the name on your cell, you have to pay the cell phone company extra. 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: More people at dog parks who are too damned lazy to walk their dogs, who know nothing about dogs as they throw toys around over which strange dogs may compete and never, ever realize that these are dogs (Predators/carnivores with strict hierarchy) and not dancing unicorns or Care Bears. I don't own a dog, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but it just seems to me that when you choose to take your animal to a place where your animal plus other animals are running free, that you assume some risk. If Connecticut says there's no assumption of risk, why would anyone living there ever willingly put their dog in harm's way? 4 Link to comment
SRTouch September 7, 2018 Share September 7, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Def. is an asshole, stating, "I saw one puncture mark and don't understand why that would cause 7 stitches." Uhhhh, unless D took a REALLY close look, he saw nada - nothing - zip. There's a reason vets shave the fur, and it's not just to have a clean area to suture. You may see 1 puncture, then find several others after shaving. And the nature of a bite - be it dog or cat - is to introduce contaminates deep into the wound at each puncture site. So if you miss cleaning a single puncture it might abcess and turn into a much MUCH worse injury.... oh, and $500+ may sound like a lot for vet bills, but it really isn't that much with how expensive vets can be these days - especially for after hours emergency treatment. Why do litigants accuse the other side of money grabbing when all the other side is after is out of pocket expenses. Lady has a bill from the vet of HER cost - unless the vet is in on the scam and giving P a kickback, P gains nothing when the D pays the bill. Edited September 7, 2018 by SRTouch 6 Link to comment
Florinaldo September 7, 2018 Share September 7, 2018 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: new cabinet broken by delivery guys: I thought that in that case, as she does more and more often these days, JM spent much effort and energy searching for intellectual contorsions that would allow her to rule for the litigant she favours, in spite of facts and principle involved. She seems to have an especially weak spot for distracted older women. She went so far in this case as to make up a whole new Golden Rule for this communications age: if you reach voice mail, you MUST leave a message each and every time. never mind that Plaintiff had not responded to previous voice messages (which was not contradicted by testimony). It is perfectly reasonable I think not to always leave a message when someone has a habit of not picking up or returning calls, but to keep calling just in case they might make a mistake and pick up. Defendant's argument that she should have known he had called because of caller ID was weak (was he really certain she has that function?), but JM's replied in a way that made it into a generational argument which managed to be both patronising and condescending towards older people, saying they are so easily defeated by the List of Callers function, unlike all of today's young 'uns. Even assuming her "voice-message-every-time" pronouncement as the new Miss Manners for the Electronics Age is valid, then would not the reverse also be true, i.e. that people MUST reply to messages left, which the Plaintiff did not do. Although she did appear easily confused, so perhaps JM's paternalistic point was justified. 6 Link to comment
aemom September 7, 2018 Share September 7, 2018 (edited) On 2018-09-04 at 5:30 PM, AngelaHunter said: def was definitely shady and slimy and an utter and perfect arrogant asshole to boot. That tree trimming defendant either has Resting Asshole Face or was just acting like a smarmy asshole. He was SO convinced that his posterboard with the 2014 Google photos were going to win him the case and then the plaintiff pulls out what they rarely seem to have: Evidence that proves that he fixed the cracks. Defendant, you are a liar, liar, and your God ugly pants are on fire. So glad he lost! Quote This show is so educational. I never knew that a vehicle which sits for 3 months automatically needs a new transmission! My husband's summer car sits in the garage for 6 months of the year and I guarantee you that it does not need a new transmission every year. *eyeroll* Edited September 7, 2018 by AEMom Typos 4 Link to comment
aemom September 7, 2018 Share September 7, 2018 (edited) Wednesday's show (Sept 5): The first case was unbelievable. There is nickel and diming and then there is the will-executor plaintiff who takes it to a whole other level. Once the defendant pulled out the nutcracker and the ceramic cat, I knew how it was going to end. She would get the stuff back and not a penny more. P sues when she hasn't even finished going through the boxes(!), and then amends her lawsuit saying that she found some of the things since! She should be so ashamed of suing this guy. But shame seems to be a rare trait on this show. On 9/5/2018 at 3:28 PM, SRTouch said: All in the family car deal fail: ? ?? - Something tells me to turn on CC, but truth is I didn't watch enough to tell if these were mumblers with bad grammar - They were pretty good - the only thing I recall was there was a lot of "axing." On 9/5/2018 at 3:28 PM, SRTouch said: 3. tenant wants out of lease:??? interesting how landlord ends up losing this one - like sis from last case, P here is decked out ready for clubbing - On 9/5/2018 at 7:38 PM, meowmommy said: What the hell do we call the getup the defendant showed up in? Yeah, that's how I'd want to be seen in a) court and b) national TV. That kind of top is called a "cold shoulder blouse," because the shoulder area is cut out. They became all the rage last summer and my apologies to any posters who like them, but I personally think they look really stupid, especially when they are in warm, chunky sweaters. They are in EVERYTHING these days making it difficult to buy a new top. What is the point of a warm sweater with the shoulders cutout? They were quite the pair: The plaintiff with her lace up stiletto boots and the defendant with her cold shoulder blouse. Perhaps they were going clubbing together after the show. Neither outfit was "court appropriate." Edited September 7, 2018 by AEMom Clarification 3 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.