The People's Court - General Discussion

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Let Mommy and Grandpa cover for him. Robin Hood didn't have the cojones to appear here today. Guess he couldn't get time off from his important job.

How are the parents legally liable for the stupidity of the 19 year old?  Why was the father sued and why was that allowed?  How come usually they put the video on a monitor for everyone to see, but here MM's watching the video on a laptop and calling the defendants up to watch?  Why is the plaintiff, even though she's in the right, taking time from her busy day to sue for $200 ( just adds to the suspicion that people come on this show to make money)?  Why did MM allow the defendant to interrupt the plaintiff, not once but twice, while shushing the plaintiff ("Stop talking!")?  Inquiring minds want to know.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

no mention that sonny could injure/kill somebody next door instead of causing property damage

That was infuriating.  If the son had been shooting a gun at a paper target on the fence, would MM have been so blithe?

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

still lost, now sounds like after he complied with her request with side portion of the repair, she is going ahead and making his repair wasted effort/expense. Now, from his side fence looks silly, she's happy from her side, and she wants judge to order him now to do anything to improve his side.

Add me to the list of people who couldn't follow it.  Seems like it would have made more sense and have been less expensive for the two of them to have gotten together, pooled their resources, and paid someone to tear down the whole nasty looking, ugly-ass block fence and build them a new one.  Tired of MM constantly claiming to know construction because her family is in construction.  I guess her family can claim to be lawyers, too, because she is.  The defendant asked for an injunction.  Can someone who performs arbitration provide injunctive relief?  Just wanna know.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

filed a Workers Comp claim

MM kept trying to get plaintiff to stop saying Workman's comp.  I'm a dedicated feminist but this seems so low on the list of things to care about.

Another case of no good deed goes unpunished.  Yes, MM, 34 still counts as millennial.  

[Silver Raven]

Why didn't the woman whose house was being shot up by the 19 year old not sue him, instead of the parents?

[Broderbits]

36 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

( just adds to the suspicion that people come on this show to make money)

I think most of the people who come on want to be on tv more than they want any money. After all, this may be their one chance to score a reality show contract!

[aemom]

Tuesday, Sept 11: 

On 9/11/2018 at 6:50 PM, AngelaHunter said:

A case so stupid and boring we had to listen to the history of these ex-lovebirds so as to extend the case to 15 minutes. She's a clean freak! He's a slob! He doesn't close the kitchen cupboard doors! Well, this was the case with my husband and me (I'm the slob) but somehow the lack of closing a cupboard door didn't result in our wedding being cancelled. There was no excuse for this case since it involved the return of the hastily purchased rings which def said she would gladly do. Why didn't she just do it? Why was this case even here? Only positive note - def. was beautifully dressed.

I did really appreciate that they were well spoken and polite to each other.  We so rarely see a case where everyone is so civilized.

 

On 9/11/2018 at 3:49 PM, SRTouch said:

not living up to her agreement: P says she's a licensed skin care lady (well, she used the fancy term, which I can't spell)

On 9/11/2018 at 6:50 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Was it "esthetician"? Not overly professional, is she, with her "This ain't Burger King" texts (she could have at least said, "This ISN'T")

Indeed she is an esthetician.  Worse than her "Burger King" texts were her "why didn't you tip me ho?!" texts.  Some of the young people these days are not getting any lessons at all about how to be a business person.  Just last week MM was lecturing this young guy about leaving phone messages.

 

The car accident - He was trying to get more than he actually earned.  Was the D actually texting?  I know that in my province, they have just recently really jacked up the points/ticket amount for texting.  Even better, the cops are sometimes riding in buses where they sit higher up and see into cars and then phoning to the police cars ahead to pull people over.  I have no problem with that.  Texting kills people every day.  It's the new drinking and driving, though I dread when pot becomes legal next month to add more fun to the situation, but that's a whole other story.

Edited September 14, 2018 by AEMom
Wrong day

[zillabreeze]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Another thing, the building owner/business owners now have to worry about an arrow hitting people working at or visiting their business.   The poor lady received for replacing the arrow damage to the fence, and building $200. 

I pulled back (barely) a modern bow at a sporting goods store.  HOLY SHIT! Those things are powerful.  Those brats could've killed the "lowly workers".  Those contraptions are far beyond just "shooting your eye out"!

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

couldn't make heads nor tails of this nonsense, so gave up.

If you show up in a courtroom on a property line dispute without a survey, there should be a contempt charge and a weekend at Rikers for wasting court time

 

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

 

3 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Did they ever explain why the son wasn't there?

He had brain surgery to perform.

 

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

and says he's suing for her illegal taping of his property, because he can't walk in his back yard in his underwear, or less than underwear.   

LOL.  IF some poor soul points their camera over my 8' wood fence to see me gardening in boxers & braless wife beater....well..I'd consider them a glutton for punishment.  It ain't pretty.

Edited September 13, 2018 by zillabreeze

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, AEMom said:

Was the D actually texting?

Not texting. IIRC, he was  getting a power adapter to plug in - it was vital he do so, I guess -  so he's driving and looking down as he approaches a red light. I wonder if it's ever occured to him how lucky he is he only smashed a car bumper instead of a person.  As for all the morons texting and driving, they should lose their licenses for at least a year and be fined 5K for the very first offense. That means you too, Levin, since you are one of those morons.

 

3 hours ago, meowmommy said:

How are the parents legally liable for the stupidity of the 19 year old? 

Yeah. Why? Just because everyone was referring to him as a "kid" and he acts like a 8-year old doesn't make him a minor. Why are TigerMommy and Daddy Gramps held accountable for what their nitwit baby boy does? Unless it's because Dad offered to pay? But we've heard before that promising to pay is not a contract, well, except when it is, I guess.

 

1 hour ago, AEMom said:

Worse than her "Burger King" texts were her "why didn't you tip me ho?!" texts. 

She really said "ho"? Wow, she's even classier than I thought. A good actress too, all sweet and demure here. I'm sure the hirsute who long to be baby-bottom smooth and who are anywhere near her place of business will be rushing right on over.

 

1 hour ago, AEMom said:

Some of the young people these days are not getting any lessons at all about how to be a business person. 

They're apparently not getting any lessons on how to talk, spell, read, write, and act like civilized human beings, never mind professional business people.

 

29 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

If you show up in a courtroom on a property line dispute without a survey, there should be a contempt charge and a weekend at Rikers for wasting court time

 

So true.

Lit: "He put his fence on my property."

JM: "Where is your property line?"

Lit: "I dunno." *shrug*

JM: "Douglas, slap the cuffs on this fool. Next stop, Riker's Island."

[meowmommy]

6 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

JM: "Douglas, slap the cuffs on this fool. Next stop, Riker's Island."

"And when you get there, I know this bail bondswoman...."

[AngelaHunter]

2 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

"And when you get there, I know this bail bondswoman...."

"Bondsperson"? Seriously, JM was more ticked off by "workMAN's Comp" than she was over the business owner calling her client a whore.

[AZChristian]

Maybe the 19-year-old's parents were handling it because they owned the property, and responsibility for what happens there is on them????  This is a civil case.  Son would have been responsible for any criminal charges, but paying for the cost of damages incurred from their property to an adjacent property might fall on the homeowners?

[CrazyInAlabama]

I feel sorry for the business owners, because you know the idiot neighbors will never make their special snowflake stop shooting at people with a deadly weapon.    I hope the local authorities saw this, and someone will tell the woman how to legally post her property, and she'll get a restraining order against the parents, and special snowflake.   I bet her insurance agent saw this, and was writing her a letter canceling her policy.     

Since she has video, I would have a lawyer do a cease and desist order on the whole family, and restraining order, and then scroll through the video every day, because you know this isn't the end of dangerous behavior.   I also wonder what a criminal background check on the parents, and the kids would show.  

 

I'm also betting idiot 19 year old son wasn't in court because his parole or bond conditions won't allow him to travel.      I'm sure the 'work' he couldn't leave for was phony too.     It's too bad the parents of the idiot, who were both stupid too, just bought that house.     I'm guessing they're all part of a group where they buy big houses, and everyone lives there forever.     I'm sure the parents got a great deal on that house, because it's in a business area and it's too bad someone doesn't want to build there too, and buy them out.   

Edited September 13, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

Did I just see two idiots trying to sue each other for loans and drug dealing profits?    What idiots.

What are they going to do for cases during sweeps in November?   Have a person suing the hitman they hired because they missed?   

 It's apparently stupid day on here.   Woman buys mattress from some guy, doesn't like it, and she wants her money back, but it's a restocking fee or he applies it to another mattress.     She gets another mattress from the same guy, and doesn't like it either.   Mattress number three doesn't work either.     I hate when people want a deal because they have a special needs son, like this woman.       Mattress number three gave her marks on her arms, and kept growing like a monster-I'm not making that up either.     The woman is a total scammer and I bet she does this all of the time.    The woman complains about mattress #2 two months after she bought it, and he still gave her a third.    I bet her poor little old lady act works on people who don't want bad publicity, but if I lived near the mattress guy I would definitely look at his mattress stock, because he really tried to help her.   I bet that scamming heifer is going home, and sleeping on that mattress for years, because she's nothing but a liar.  I wonder if other furniture places won't deal with her because she's pulled this before.  

I live in town now, and within a mile of my house are two department stores with mattresses, and at least six mattress specialty stores, so why did this woman go to someone's place where she had a limited selection?       I think she wants a free, fancy mattress, because her reasons for not keeping the mattresses were very lame.    Also, the mattress seller was being very nice, because my mattress store (my favorite one) does do 30 day refunds, or exchanges, but the original mattress either gets donated, and sterilized, or trashed if they're stained or torn.   

Edited September 13, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[Taeolas]

14 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

If you show up in a courtroom on a property line dispute without a survey, there should be a contempt charge and a weekend at Rikers for wasting court time

 

Unless you show up on Judge Judy. She doesn't read property surveys; at least according to a case a few years back. :( 

 

That's where MM is excellent at; she keeps her skills up and knows enough to know what stuff is valuable and what's just chaff, most of the time. 

[DoctorK]

55 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Did I just see two idiots trying to sue each other for loans and drug dealing profits?

That was a fun case, especially when JM called Mr. Dealer's girl friend and she completely busted him on his story. Even better, girl friend got a "she's a keeper" comment from JM when girl friend said she had to explain to Mr. Dealer that he couldn't go to the cops about a marijuana deal issue.

 

59 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The woman is a total scammer and I bet she does this all of the time. 

Totally agree, the annoying old bat was still trying to talk over JM while JM was giving the verdict. That mattress dealer was a sainh to put up with her as far as he did.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I'm also betting idiot 19 year old son wasn't in court because his parole or bond conditions won't allow him to travel.      I'm sure the 'work' he couldn't leave for was phony too.     

Making license plates for the state is a job!!!!  And it DOES keep you from travelling.

[SRTouch]

Dumb and dumber fallout over weed deal: thinking these two Einsteins were sitting around getting stoned and watching some court tv, and came up with this ridiculous case to get their 15 minutes of fame. P says he was helping his good (broke ass) buddy out with a series of loans - money to be used for baby food, diapers, etc - and figures in total he let da'bum have a total of three grand in around 70 different "loans" over a two year period. D comes swaggering in as we hear his defense - P didn't loan him any money, nah, P used to bring over copious amounts of weed for D to sell since he lived in a bad neighborhood with lots of potential customers - ah, but selling was too much work, so instead he and his buds smoked it up - oh, and one those passing  the weed around was good buddy P. This looks like pure entertainment case - no evidence for these loans - silly defense - waste of time - but these guys are not Cheech & Chong. Ok, once case begins it lives down to my expectations. Turns out reason P is claiming 3 grand as that's the max in their jurisdiction - soooo, if they were coming from California he'd be asking 10 grand. I only lasted a few seconds listening to his nonsense as he kept no records of when money was loaned or paid back, it was all, like, over a 2 year period, like, and he finally got fed up, like, and said Bro! You gotta start paying me back, Bro! And he'd like give me 30 bucks..... and like Bro, see what happens when I like press this button - zip zip - time to see what D has to say. Ah, the Marijuana story.... seems instead of saying "like" every third word, D just says "uhh".... not interested, zip zip.... hmmm guess the folks running the show (did shorty pick this one) figure this is great tv, as I skip ahead to when case should be over and find MM on the phone chatting with Kia, who apparently wrote a letter as evidence and MM has question... nope, not over yet, zip zip.... geez, they stretched this BS out to 30 minutes... oh, while announcing her dismissing of the case, saying she was ruling in "favor of the lazy drug dealer" poor P is raising his hand asking if he can use his 'phone a friend' card to, like, get his cousin on the line.

mattress lady: P has latched on a scheme where she expects to always have a new mattress. Apparently she bought a mattress from someplace which guarantees satisfaction, then after it's delivered and she sleeps on it a few time she exchanges it for a new one.... hmmmm, shades of three bears - this is too hard - too soft - but apparently never just right... today's case has P complaining she never got a mattress she liked, and meany D won't give her a full cash refund - oh, and since she had to file suit to get her money back, she's asking for double what she paid because of the aggravation... Talking aggravation,  I'm watching this before first cup of coffee has kicked in - and these cases are AGGRAVATING. Even CC isn't helping P with her broken English, and D seems to answer every other question with "I'm hard of hearing." Kind of wonder if it is even possible for these two to reach a meeting on the minds. Liberal use of zip button. First mattress too soft - second mattress a different size and uses a different pkatform, so more expensive,  but is delivered and set up - it's a monster memory foam and grows and grows for two days - oh, and it might be buggy as it causes poor P to itch. She says she still has marks on her arms from the bites, is summoned to bench for a closer look but MM finds nary a bite (ah, but she didn't pull out the magnifying glass.) Oh, she even went to doctor about the bites or rash or whatever and got some "itchy cream" but, oh well, she didn't bring the medical records - why, does she need them, she's a little old lady, she wouldn't lie (anybody else suspect the "eye procedure" which requires her to wear sunglasses in court might be a sympathy ploy? Oh, like maybe the special needs son she apparently used to gain sympathy and discount from mattress guy.) Uh oh, and what's this.... turns out second mattress, the buggy monster mattress that grew for two days - well she had that one for months before she called to complain. Ah, mattress guy was still willing to take back the mattress and and her money at that point - just not willing to pay his employees to go pick it up. Ah, but says P, what is she going to do, carry it on her back? Case dismissed over P's continued interruptions  throughout case - yes MM repeatedly told her to be quiet and not shout out - made no difference and case ends with MM ruling while P yells "excuse me" in the background.

car deal: (must be in a bad mood today, as I'm not the least impressed when P walks in wearing big gold cross necklace) ok, not usual car deal - this time P sold car as a parts car - body was good but no drive train. Well, D took the Caddy body, put in an engine and got it running fine - but P says he hasn't paid a penny for the body. D doesn't deny taking the old caddy body, but his story is he was doing P a favor. Says, yeah at first P said it was for sale, but when D said he wasn't paying anything P ended up giving it to him to get rid of the eyesore - now that D put work getting drive train issue worked,  P has reconsidered and decided it was a sale. And, how dare P anyway, suing him for a grand - why he's decided to countersue - for 5 grand because somebody, either P or maybe the mechanic doing the Frankenstein work of turning two junkers into one, took parts off HIS rusty junker. Uh oh. Two old dude's feuding - and making me think of the recent neighbors, neighbors of 40+ years, feuding over old concrete wall without knowing whose property wall sits on..... anyway, today's case has mechanic working on D's 18year old caddy, finding body rusted out, and asking P if he still has HIS old non-running Caddy with the good body. Turns out P does still have the car, he's been paying $125 a month for 8 months to store it, and he's willing to sell it for the low low price of $500. Okkkkkkk, first question - if he was selling it for $500 why is he suing for $1000.... oh, another aggravation $500 like the last cases nutty lady. Uh, neither side has evidrnce, only possible witness us missing mechanic who put these two in contact and did the work..... case going nowhere and ought to be dismissed - unless there's time on the clock and MM decides to call mechanic, John... no, no time - no case - MM acts miffed at the waste of time - bye bye

Edited September 13, 2018 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Son would have been responsible for any criminal charges, but paying for the cost of damages incurred from their property to an adjacent property might fall on the homeowners?

But we've seen judgments against minors - good for 5 or 10 years I think -  for their "willful acts of misconduct" so why not against a legal adult? I don't get it.

[AZChristian]

Just now, AngelaHunter said:

But we've seen judgments against minors - good for 5 or 10 years I think -  for their "willful acts of misconduct" so why not against a legal adult? I don't get it.

I don't "get it" either . . . but maybe if Sonny Boy is incarcerated for the next many years, plaintiff decided to go with the only people involved who  might be able to pay for the damages.  There's always stuff in those folders that the judge gets that we don't hear about.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

I think the decision to sue the homeowner might be because both parents were told about the arrow shooting, and saw nothing wrong with someone on their property shooting potentially deadly objects onto the neighbor's property, and going right back to the parents' property and doing it some more.   I bet the little cretins do things like this all of the time.     The parents were a piece of work, and didn't care about any damage or trespassing the idiots did either.    The parents will be making lame excuses for this idiot for the rest of his life too.  

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Dumb and dumber fallout over weed deal:

Crap like this makes me appreciate judges even more, that they can sit there and listen to stupid, incoherent BS from wastes of oxygen like Dumb and Dumber here. I do enjoy when JM reads the illiterate "texes" verbatim and actually emphasizes each "You was" and "it ain't". I'd find it a lot funnier if Jaquan and Dujuan or whatever weren't breeding as they sit and smoke 3K worth of grass. I think the drugs are killing whatever few brain cells they possessed. They've been friends since 7th grade? No one I've known could have even reached 7th grade with that grammar. Keep carelessly having babies. I'm sure you have wonderful lives and great futures to offer them.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

mattress lady: P has latched on a scheme where she expects to always have a new mattress.

These cases never make me fail to be grateful that I never had to deal with the public. This was pretty outrageous and another waste of time.  Most mattress stores I know of will exchange a mattress once within 90 days. I did do this a few years ago - for the first and only time -  when I purchased a very expensive mattress and learned that you never EVER buy a pillowtop. The store exchanged it, after sending someone wearing white gloves to inspect my mattress with everything but a magnifying glass. It was pristine so they did take it back. They will not exchange it a second time. I don't know what the old lady's agenda was but her attitude was vile: "Am I supposed to bring it to the store on my back?" No, you aren't, but if you want to keep exchanging the merchandise for no reason you'll have to pay something. Store owner was beyond reasonable and most other mattress store owners would have told her to go pound sand after the second complaint.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

car deal: (must be in a bad mood today, as I'm not the least impressed when P walks in wearing big gold cross necklace)

That was the second huge cross today. The first was worn by drug dealer/user and baby daddy def. Dujuan. It's laughable that they seem to think their prominent display of crosses means their testimony is beyond reproach. Anyway, some squabbling about two old broken down Caddies and yadda yadda who cares?

[break21]

The Mattress case was one of the most excruciating cases I've seen on tv.  The lady has a hard time understanding English, the man is hard of hearing.  MM's repeating herself and yelling just about every time she speaks.  I had a headache when it was over.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Some local mattress stores here will exchange a mattress to keep good will, and their reputation intact.   However, they get killed on the exchange, because they can only donate a pristine mattress, and then it's sterilized and resold through thrift stores, or trash the mattress.     That woman was infuriating, and I'm guessing she goes through life eating the steak (TM JJ), and then wanting a full refund and damages.

I'm sure the person that invented the pillow top mattress is beloved by the entire furniture and mattress industry, since it cuts the life of your mattress in half since you can only turn it on one side, and not flip it.    

Edited September 13, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

14 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I'm sure the person that invented the pillow top mattress is beloved by the entire furniture and mattress industry, since it cuts the life of your mattress in half since you can only turn it on one side, and not flip it.    

It's not just that, but even on the most expensive mattress, the actual foam used in the pillowtop is of the cheapest quality and after maybe a week you'll have a big indentation where you sleep. This happened to me and I'm of average weight.  The only answer is to return it or cut off the pillowtop and replace it with some other sort of topper.

I've never had memory foam - heard too many bad things about it - but it hardly keeps growing indefinitely and turns into a "monster". This woman was a nightmare customer.

[AZChristian]

6 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I've never had memory foam - heard too many bad things about it - but it hardly keeps growing indefinitely and turns into a "monster". This woman was a nightmare customer.

Just chiming in . . . we've had a Memory Foam mattress for over 10 years.  It can be a bit warm (and I live in AZ), but the comfort level is such that I'd never buy another regular mattress.  

[AngelaHunter]

26 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

. we've had a Memory Foam mattress for over 10 years.  It can be a bit warm (and I live in AZ), but the comfort level is such that I'd never buy another regular mattress.  

Yeah, my brother and his wife got one about 5 years ago and are quite happy with it. I guess I'm just an old-fashioned gal! The fact that I hadn't bought a new mattress for longer than I care to say, so didn't know the choice was so wide might be part of it.

[meowmommy]

8 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Maybe the 19-year-old's parents were handling it because they owned the property, and responsibility for what happens there is on them????

Hmmm....so if it hadn't been their son, but had been a friend shooting arrows from their backyard, they'd still be on the hook?   I wish MM had given an explanation as to why the parents were liable, because it made NO sense.

6 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Making license plates for the state is a job!!!!  And it DOES keep you from travelling.

I didn't do my part to keep him employed.  I went last week (finally!) to register my car in AZ and when they went to give me plates, I asked if I could reuse my old vanity plates from when I lived here five years ago, and they let me.

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

This looks like pure entertainment case - no evidence for these loans - silly defense - waste of time - but these guys are not Cheech & Chong.

If only it were entertaining.  

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I do enjoy when JM reads the illiterate "texes" verbatim and actually emphasizes each "You was" and "it ain't"....No one I've known could have even reached 7th grade with that grammar. 

That was fascinating.  I sometimes get casual in my spoken word, but when it comes time to write, grammar, spelling, and syntax come roaring right back.  

Social promotion.  That's how they got to 7th grade.  They never said they actually ever got past the 7th grade.  They might have been in the 7th grade five times.  Despite the plaintiff wearing some kind of parochial high school emblem on his sweater-vest.

Gotta love how the GF says she told him, "You can't take him to court for marijuana."  Duh!

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Even CC isn't helping P with her broken English, and D seems to answer every other question with "I'm hard of hearing." Kind of wonder if it is even possible for these two to reach a meeting on the minds.

Continuing the crimes against grammar, MM says, "You lied down on the mattress."  Nails, meet chalkboard.  

I'm almost sympathetic to the plaintiff, because I'm on a shitty mattress that felt ok in the store but not so good at home.  Unfortunately I'm in no position to have it replaced.  And the bed frame they sold me collapsed.  I'm not that fat.  Almost sympathetic, but she's too obnoxious.

I never saw a yarmulke held on with snap clips before.  Bobby pins, yes.  At least it's a safe bet it'll never fall off.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

Gotta love how the GF says she told him, "You can't take him to court for marijuana."  Duh!

GF also informed JM that getting into a fistfight constitutes a verbal agreement? I did hear that correctly, did I not?

 

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

They might have been in the 7th grade five times. 

If they repeated 7th grade five times, shouldn't they at least have come away with the knowledge that "We was" is not acceptable? JFC. In my last year of high school there was a student in one of my classes who was 21 years old (I think he was just lazy as hell) and even he didn't say "You was."

 

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

 I wish MM had given an explanation as to why the parents were liable, because it made NO sense.

It made no sense at all. I remember in the Dark Ages when Judge Wapner clearly explained that parents were not automatically liable for the acts of their children, never mind for the acts of someone who is legally a grown man. One of life's little mysteries, I guess.

[Katy M]

31 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

GF also informed JM that getting into a fistfight constitutes a verbal agreement? I did hear that correctly, did I not?

And I always thought a fistfight constituted a physical argument.

[AngelaHunter]

44 minutes ago, Katy M said:

And I always thought a fistfight constituted a physical argument.

You mean "physical altercation" in litigant-speak. They may not know basic grammar, but they all know the words used in police reports.

[aemom]

On 2018-09-12 at 7:23 PM, meowmommy said:

How are the parents legally liable for the stupidity of the 19 year old?  Why was the father sued and why was that allowed? 

 

Why did MM allow the defendant to interrupt the plaintiff, not once but twice, while shushing the plaintiff ("Stop talking!")?  Inquiring minds want to know.

That was infuriating.  If the son had been shooting a gun at a paper target on the fence, would MM have been so blithe?

On 2018-09-12 at 7:23 PM, Silver Raven said:

Why didn't the woman whose house was being shot up by the 19 year old not sue him, instead of the parents?

Seriously.  How on earth are the parents liable for this?  19 is a legal adult.  Period.  Why wasn't his ass there to be handed to him on a platter by MM?  What kind of legal magic occurred to allow the P to sue the parents?

As for the interruption, I think it was because MM heard what she said: "if she has video for one hole, then where is the video proof for the 15 holes?" but that it was a bit drowned out by the P.  She wanted the P to stop talking and have D repeat that so that she could hang herself with her ridiculous statement and MM could lambast her stupidity.

I did agree with one thing.  I would not be overly thrilled to have a camera filming my backyard.  If that is not legal, then she really should move the camera, no matter whether or not the Defendants are assholes.

And also - no time at all was spent on the fact that they were shooting ARROWS, not paper airplanes.  Arrows can maim and/or kill people and animals.  You should not be allowed to shoot anything like that in the direction of people.  I would be very concerned about anyone or anything walking back there.

 

The stone wall/fence case should have lasted 1 minute: 

To P: "Do you have a survey?

P: "No."

To D: "Do you have a survey?

D: "No."

MM: "You're both filing about shit on your property, nobody can prove where their property is, cases dismissed."  Gavel.  Walks out of courtroom.

Two whiners who can't get along after close to 50 years next door to each other.

 

The truck case.  I do enjoy when the D do all sorts of stupid things and MM is able to make them look like the fool that they are.  A champion parent who has time to get into bar fights, but not enough time to write a cheque for child support.  Oops - probably can't write a cheque with his injured wrist - that he filed Work(man) comp for.

Edited September 14, 2018 by AEMom
Forgot my point about the arrows

[Katy M]

45 minutes ago, AEMom said:

Seriously.  How on earth are the parents liable for this?  19 is a legal adult.  Period.  Why wasn't his ass there to be handed to him on a platter by MM?  What kind of legal magic occurred to allow the P to sue the parents?

You're generally liable for what happens on your property.  especially if you have prior knowledge. That doesn't mean the 19 year old isn't liable.  But, when more than one party is liable, one has the right to sue both, or either, party.  Why not sue the party that will actually be able to pay you.  The parents are now free to turn around and sue their son. 

[aemom]

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

You're generally liable for what happens on your property.  especially if you have prior knowledge. That doesn't mean the 19 year old isn't liable.  But, when more than one party is liable, one has the right to sue both, or either, party.  Why not sue the party that will actually be able to pay you.

That does make sense.

 

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

The parents are now free to turn around and sue their son. 

HA. HA. HA. HA. HA!  Sue their precious snowflake!   ;-)

[CrazyInAlabama]

What is 'almost dating', just sleeping together, but not knocked up yet?     So he drove her car, she claims he ran the red light, he claims the other car ran the red light, and p. keeps asking the d. what happened.   Was she really in the car or not?   Tickets were no insurance (on her car), he doesn't have insurance either; second ticket was for no license, or the license wasn't in his name.   They call him Cartier Banks, because he's an artist, and p. doesn't know his real name.   

  Apparently, Mom of p. didn't know this insurance or anything else, Mom looks stunned and really pissed.    According to police report a spinning car hit a third car.     Witnesses say d. idiot ran red light, another non-involved driver says he swerved around driver stopping for the red light, into the bike lane, and ran the red light.     

P. wants lost wages from the facial bruises (no seatbelt of course), meant that she couldn't work at the club.    She claims she's a bottle seller, probably naked.    That's bull, all of the women that work that club can cover bruises so you can't see them during a lap dance, or dancing on the pole.  What the hell is going on with p.'s lower teeth?  Missing or what? 

MM gave that heifer almost $2200 for the car and tow, and heifer should have left with no money at all.   He ran a red light, and could have killed a lot of people.     JJ would have thrown them out when p. kept asking d. for information, and wouldn't have given p. a penny.

Bleeding dog paw from boarding kennel, and p. wants over $2300.   Dog needed a few stitches according to d.      A boxer/pit mix, but if there's any boxer in that dog I don't see it.     Dog had paw injury, but those bleed a lot.    Dog apparently had stitches, then dog is puking, etc. and not eating.     IV fluids, X ray, and something with her stomach.    How could this be caused by a paw injury?     Wonder if the dog had all of it's shots?      The kennel run looks fine to me, and I don't see how the dog got hurt.   They get awarded a little over a thousand, not for the dog infection, which wasn't their problem.    I bet the sour face on the p. wife is because she thought that d. was going to finance their dog's entire illness, cover the cut paw, the stomach issue, and their trip to Colorado.   I hope in the future that the kennel owner refuses to deal with the plaintiffs.  

p. wanted three puppies from litter, d. dog secretly had 11 puppies, and d. claims uncle didn't want them.  p. wants 50 of profit from pit bull litter.    Apparently there was an issue involving pot.     What a couple of idiots, and I feel sorry for the female pit who probably will have litters every six months for the rest of her miserable life.   There's also a dispute over weed, and a lot of family garbage.   P. wins $1,000 and poor dog is still going to be popping out puppies.    What a family full of losers.  

Edited September 14, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

37 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

What the hell is going on with p.'s lower teeth?  Missing or what? 

At first I thought he had a speech impediment, but I watched carefully and think that he had one of those classy and stylish slip on gold grills on his lower teeth, and whenever he wasn't talking he was using his tongue and lower lip move it around and play with it. He was a complete jerk and a blatant liar, and has a grossly inflated opinion of his intelligence, talent and attractiveness. His not quite girl friend was at best a fool, more likely just old fashioned stupid. They deserve each other.

[SRTouch]

Friend won't pay after running a red light and getting her car smashed: P says she let her good - almost, but not quite, a dating bf - drive her car - he runs a light and her car is smashed - he not only is dodging paying, but has his lawyer cousin harrassing her. Ok, first thing - unless this is some antique/classic with power nothing, why, if she's in the car is the friend driving - not like they were on a road trip and switching off driving.... oh, and just posted in other forum about inappropriate attire - yep, this is what we're talking about. As D staggers out (maybe a dark color hoodey is closet thing to business casual in his wardrobe), we hear his claim that they were heading out for fast food and she tossed him her keys and told him to drive - other guy ran the light - and HER cousin called HIM threatening to make him 'disappear' if he didn't pay for repairs. Ok, police report anyone? Anybody cited? Oh, and what about insurance? Or maybe we're talking older model with just liability - or maybe no gap insurance. Ok, testimony is actually bunch of silliness - she says he always drives when they go anywhere - why? asks MM, silly girl giggles, looks puzzled, and says just because - half expected her to be chewing gum and blowing bubbles. Quick trip across aisle - yep, says D - almost not quite bf - he pretty much always drives whether in her car or his. Ah, after watching her squint and scrunch up her eyes, maybe others drive cuz she can't see. P really having trouble making her case - MM, "were you looking at light when he ran it" dizzy P "no, not really, I trusted him to drive" MM "then how do you know light was red" ditz "oh, I looked up in that instant" oh, and little break in testimony while MM tells D not to shout out, let MM ask questions and P answer - you know, like you were in a real courtroom. Oh, boy, more trouble with the ditz and her testimony - MM asks which side of her car got t-boned, and for second time Ditz turns and asks D for help.... if I wasn't blond I'd make a blond joke since most of her hair is blond this week. Ah, quick question having nada to do with case, MM asks who her lady witness is, and we learn it's Mommy... also inappropriately dressed, wearing big hoop earrings and displaying lots of cleavage as she leans forward to coach Ditz. Ok, quick seat belt lesson - nobody wearing them, everybody smashed heads on dash or steering wheel - hey, doesn't take much to injure or kill you if you bump your head wrong... besides, as far as I know, it's a legal requirement EVERYWHERE these days. Ok, ditzy testimony getting old, over to D.... also not sharpest tack in the box - not only a mumbler but appears to be chewing gum - no bubbles. Oh dear, here's a time the white board and toys might have been useful, instead poor Swifty is using his hands to try to paint a picture of what happened.... audience laughing at him as MM calls him up to try to understand WTH.  Heck, now MM and D Are standing site by side, pretending he's driving and she's the passenger.... and we see the blank white board hanging on the wall behind them as he's waving his hands and saying, Look, look, this is what happened. Ok, funny for 2 minutes, but then gets boring... ah, but then he blows his testimony. He tells us light was yellow, and he was trying to hurry and get through intersection before it turned red... ah, he thinks yellow means step on it. MM even asks, "did you speed up?" Swifty, "yeah, but the light was yellow, not red" So, maybe car that hit him is one of those who tries to time it so they are entering intersection at speed as soon as light is green. At best, both drivers at fault (and P breaking the law for not wearing her seat belt.) Ok, this mess is only at ten minute mark.... not sure what there's left to talk about. Back to my questions before testimony began - yeah, he got a couple tickets (obviously didn't learn anything as he just told us yellow means floor it and still argues it was yellow in hallterview). Hoboy, also ticketed for no license (says he has one - just not on him) and no insurance - and he owns and drives his own car? P giggles as MM is roasting him about no insurance - but stops when MM turns and determines she doesn't insure her car, either (so, another law she routinely ignores). Only ones I feel sorry for are the rest of us who share the road with idiots like these two - plus, if we're to believe his story, those like the other driver who time traffic lights like a drag race starting line. Geez, these two are even dumber than I thought.... D didn't even realise there was a police report - P enters it into evidence, having never bothered to read it (mommy says she read it) - and this is first time these two learn there was a third vehicle involved!?!  If they had bothered to read it, they would have learned three witnesses, the two other drivers and a third witness, a bystander who waited til cops arrived and stepped forward, all reported D ran the light. glad I stuck with it, this case is getting fun Not only did Swifty run the light, he swerved around car in front of him to try to make it through the intersection on the yellow.... which, as MM points out after commercial, means P was lieing through her teeth about what she "saw..." now P admits she saw nada, she was on her phone at the time. I get why cops didn't ticket him for these other offenses, since only way to make it stick would be if witnesses are willing to show up at the hearing, and besides they already have him for no license and insurance (wonder if her car was registered). Ok, dude is liable for damages - too bad the other drivers aren't suing the both of these two. I wouldn't give little miss perjury anything for the car - not only because she lied here, but she admits car was uninsured, she doesn't bother with seatbelts, and figures lieing under oath is perfectly fine if it gets her money. Clean hands! Nobody has clean hands - just that his are dirtier. Ok, damage phase - part of her claim is missed work, because she's a stripper (no, no, not stripper, she sells bottles at a nightclub) and nobody tips when you have a busted lip... back to how she doesn't bother to buckle up, I don't want to give her anything - but then would that mean Swifty, who according to police report was driving recklessly, comes out a winner only paying his tickets? Ok, MM makes Swifty (turns out not only didn't he have his license at the scene - cops were given his "rap name" instead of his real name - MM asks if he really even has a license, but doesn't make him produce it) anyway, Swifty pays 2 grand for the car and tow, but nothing for the busted lip.

dog case:  not the usual clueless owners, no, according to intro, these folks took their furbaby to doggy day care and an hour later got a call that their baby had been injured. Not sure how D, the care provider, is not on the hook for the emergency vet surgery - oh, but then maybe they have some blanket waiver clause denying liability (even then, if they were negligent they should pay). D intro says he's been in business 15 years and has taken care of pup 4 times in the past. Sounds like his defence is it was just a little injury requiring a couple stitches and P are inflating damages. Hmmmm, maybe so, but vet bill will prove one way or the other. Anyway, not abuse/neglect/clueless owner, but more a provider trying to dodge liability (a bailment - my court TV education coming into play). Ok, D might be right about the damages being inflated... but then again maybe not... sounds like P are after 2 grand and vet bill a quarter of that. But, thinking of what they're saying, they were boarding the dog as they were leaving town - would day care be on hook if P had nonrefundable hotel/plane tickets that had to be scrapped because of the injury. Oops, not the case.... dog left with a friend and they went ahead on their week trip. Day after the injury, dogsitter friend takes dog back to vet - dog off her food, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydrated, etc. Bills mounting up as vet tries to figure it out - is dog just feeling depressed cuz mommy and daddy abandoned her while she has boo-boo, is it a reaction to meds, or is injury worse then a cut requiring 3 stitches. Hmmmm wonder if vet was padding the bill charging $400+ for x-rays - maybe that's explained in the vet records P entered into evidence. Turns out stomach upset, something to do with stomach lining - testimony not exactly definitive as to cause, again, might be something in records. Dog still limping and undergoing treatment.... is case premature? Over to D.... so far I'm on P side, but maybe he'll say something that will swing me over. Strike one is fairly common - business owner offering hearsay evidence from onsite employee who was doing the job of caring for the dog - at least it's not just him talking, he brought along an affidavit  (might work, MM will read them and sometimes call - whereas JJ might just say I DON'T READ - then again sometimes JJ DOES read if the mood strikes her - consistent she is NOT.) Actually, so far P hadn't proved negligence, don't really even have a theory of what D did wrong.... and doggy care giver HAS swung me to his side - barely.... unless there's a surprise switcheroo coming - doubtful as time about up... well, MM sounds like she wants D to present a theory on how the accident happened - and his answer that the dog was acting in unsafe manner and a dog being a dog is not helpful. Ok, some fence fighting in first kennel, dog acting up,  but uninjured at this point, moved to a private kennel away from other dogs, dog injured and bleeding minutes later..... not a big switchetoo, but what the heck happened, was there a bolt sticking out on one the the brackets we see on the wall - and why couldn't missing employee have stayed with dog until she calmed dog - does dog exhibit separation anxiety and go crazy after getting calmed down.  I'm back on P side for the vet bills - again, just barely. Ok, decision time - D pays vet bills.... which is about half of want P wanted. After ruling, MM starts to leave, but comes back and we learn D made a couple settlement offers (top offer $800) and said in answer to complaint he was losing sleep worrying about poor Bella and her hurt foot and whether there is anyway to make his kennels safer... wife was urging him to make 'nother settlement offer or just pay P off and stop losing sleep - makes me feel better about him - if I had a dog I might board at his facility as it looked clean and, as he said, as safe as he can make it.... but sh#t happens.

backyard breeder feud: no recap on this one after listening to intro... seems P bought nephew a dog with understanding he was to get 3 puppies when bred - dog had pups, but nephew tried to hide fact from uncle.... mini-rant: I HATE people buying animals to start what sounds like puppy mill business. As I've said more than once, unless you have a special need, there is no reason to breed your pet - and if you're looking for a life long best friend visit your local shelter - you'll find critters begging to go home with you.... and if you're after purebreds you can find them as well the best moggy/mutt life companion you could possibly want. Anyway, I could be wrong, but I'm not even waiting for P intro to end before skipping this one

Edited September 14, 2018 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Friend won't pay after running a red light and getting her car smashed:

I'm not quite sure what JM found so precious or amusing about these two dumb-as-bricks idiots - plaintiff thought she was just too adorable with her fake hair and fake everything else, and def could barely speak (what the hell was going on with his mouth?) and was very disrespectful, downright rude to JM and nearly incoherent.  "Nah, I ain't got no insurance!" Did you think he would, JM? He does have a license, but not with him, of course. Naturally, he claims the independant witnesses were liars.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

dog case:  not the usual clueless owners, no, according to intro, these folks took their furbaby to doggy day care and an hour later got a call that their baby had been injured.

HATED the asshole kennel owner. First of all, everything he said about how the dog got hurt was total hearsay, since he wasn't there and decided not to bring the person who WAS there. He describes the incident as though he witnessed it when he knows zero about it. And then, this person who owns a kennel tried to blame the dog's injuries on the dog's negligence/carelessness. The dog was careless! He was beyond outrageous, I hated his stupid smirk, and I really wish JM hadn't been so easy on him or acted as though there was something funny about this. An injury on the pad of a dog's foot is very difficult to deal with and to heal since they're walking on it.  Yes, animals can get into trouble, but the person who is being paid to care for them is responsible. Trying to blame the dog is kind of despicable and certainly is no glowing reference for his facility. I would never EVER go there, since this is a person who accuses animals on his watch of being careless.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

backyard breeder feud:

I'm with you. The second I heard about the scummy backyard breeding enterprise, I was out.

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

What is 'almost dating', just sleeping together, but not knocked up yet?

"Talking", "amost dating" - I guess they just get together for a little random sex if no one else more suitable is available. How romantic.

[SRTouch]

20 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

HATED the asshole kennel owner. First of all, everything he said about how the dog got hurt was total hearsay, since he wasn't there and decided not to bring the person who WAS there. He describes the incident as though he witnessed it when he knows zero about it. And then, this person who owns a kennel tried to blame the dog's injuries on the dog's negligence/carelessness

Got to thinking about it... what else could D have done? welllllll, we're not sure how long it took for owners to get back, but Bella was still bleeding and only  had a thin gauze bandage, according to P and it was soaked through... how about basic first aid where you check for airway, pulse and BLEEDING. (Yeah, foot wounds can bleed alot, and Bella is a pit/boxer mix which might not appreciate a pressure bandage - but did anyone try to stop the bleeding or just wrap the foot in gauze.) Oh, and does D get client's vet preference and did he offer to take still bleeding Bella and meet owners at vet. More I think about it, lower my opinion of D goes.

Quote

I'm with you. The second I heard about the scummy backyard breeding enterprise, I was out.

Yes, after reading @CRAZYINALABAMA post glad I skipped and deleted it unseen

Edited September 14, 2018 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

14 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

More I think about it, lower my opinion of D goes.

All I had to hear is that he blamed the dog for her injury when he had no idea what happened, but just trust him - his employee who depends on him for a paycheck is completely impartial and would never tell a lie. Between dog and human who is being paid to safely board the dog, liability is strictly on the human's side. Accidents happen. Man up and pay for it. A dog I had got my TV remote and chewed it up. Did I blame her for her irresponsiblity? Nope. It was all my fault. I'm supposed to be the one with the big brain, right? It's all up to me to keep her and my possessions safe. We've seen other defendants here (boarding horses and dogs) try to blame the animals for whatever nasty thing befell them and they all make me sick.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Yes, I agree the pad injury was the kennel owners fault, but not the subsequent puking, and other illness that actually cost more.   I think the dog owners thought they could get everything paid for, and not just the pad injury.    I'm wondering if the dog eats random garbage, as some dogs do, or if the dog was incubating some disease.    

The p. wife expected a bonanza, and was mad she didn't get it.    

[meowmommy]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I wouldn't give little miss perjury anything for the car - not only because she lied here, but she admits car was uninsured

If you only have liability and not collision, and most owners of older cars do, that's one thing, but if you have zero insurance, meaning not only are you cheating state law but proving you don't give a shit about anyone but yourself, you should forfeit your right to collect a dime from anyone.  And if he really didn't run the light, she would have been able to sue the other driver, too.  Sow.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Ok, MM makes Swifty (turns out not only didn't he have his license at the scene - cops were given his "rap name" instead of his real name -

Don't you have to use your legal name in legal proceedings, like court?  And is giving a fake name to the cops in an official function lying to the cops?

54 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Between dog and human who is being paid to safely board the dog, liability is strictly on the human's side. Accidents happen.

TWO dog cases in one day?  We're not outraged and nauseated enough by one?  Fuck Levin.  (We need a TPC T-shirt.)  

I'm wondering if the dog might have already getting sick when she got there, and that's why she acted out and got into a scrum.  

[Not my day to watch pet cases anyway.  Had a dream about hugging my Tommy this morning but woke up; just like losing him all over again.]  

[howiveaddict]

Dog was probably emotionally traumatized . First going to the kennel. Then to a stranger to watch him. No wonder he threw up.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, howiveaddict said:

Dog was probably emotionally traumatized . First going to the kennel. Then to a stranger to watch him. No wonder he threw up.

Probably not feeling well before she got to the kennel. From what the vet said it sounded like gastro, something my dogs have had from grabbing some crap and swallowing it before I could get it away from them. Feeling sick may make a dog feel vulnerable which may have accounted for the fence fighting - the best defense is a good offense - since she'd never done it before. All conjecture on my part, of course, and from having had a few dogs.

 

6 hours ago, meowmommy said:

And is giving a fake name to the cops in an official function lying to the cops?

Nah, he don't gotta give his real name. And maybe his real name would have gotten him into trouble. The cops seem to be very lax wherever this fiasco took place.

[aemom]

Thursday: Sept 13:

That was weird.  MM was very loosy-goosy personality-wise with the drug dealers even to the point of phoning the girlfriend because D just had a statement written on foolscap from her.  So many times, when she gets something hand written like that, it's just not admissable in court and she moves on.  But then, she was super-cranky with the mattress lady from the get go.  And then cranky again with the Cadillac whiners.

 

On 9/13/2018 at 7:56 PM, meowmommy said:

I'm almost sympathetic to the plaintiff, because I'm on a shitty mattress that felt ok in the store but not so good at home. 

The last time that I went to buy a mattress, I did a lot of research which said that when you shop for a mattress, be sure to lie on it exactly the way you would sleep on it.  And don't just lie on it for 30 seconds.  Lie on it for 5-10 minutes.  I made sure to do that, and sure enough, some mattresses which seemed fine initially, were not comfortable a few minutes later.  We easily spent 1-1.5 hours in the mattress store lying on all kinds of mattresses.

Around here mattress stores are VERY competitive with each other and will match each other's prices over and over again.  They will all take returns - provided you buy the magical mattress cover which keeps it pristine.  I don't remember for how long you can return it, but I'm thinking that it was 30 days.

 

On 9/13/2018 at 9:17 PM, AngelaHunter said:

GF also informed JM that getting into a fistfight constitutes a verbal agreement? I did hear that correctly, did I not?

That was hilarious.  She also seemed more intelligent than P&D put together.  Which led me to wonder - why is she the D's girlfriend?  Can't she do better?  Or is she exhibit #3567 on this show of "women who stay with loser men for no damn good reason."

 

The Cadillac guys were just whiners and the D invented the word "functionable" during his testimony which made me laugh.

Edited September 15, 2018 by AEMom
Remembered the word

[Schnickelfritz]

On ‎9‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 8:17 PM, AngelaHunter said:

On ‎9‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 6:56 PM, meowmommy said:

Gotta love how the GF says she told him, "You can't take him to court for marijuana."  Duh!

GF also informed JM that getting into a fistfight constitutes a verbal agreement? I did hear that correctly, did I not?

 

I personally loved her logic. She said that the Plaintiff told the defendant that either the defendant pay up or they would fight. Well, they chose to fight, so in her mind they made a new verbal agreement and all was now even. There is a beauty to her thought process. I think she was the only one of the 3 with 2 brain cells to rub together.

Edited September 16, 2018 by Schnickelfritz

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Schnickelfritz said:

. She said that the Plaintiff told the defendant that either the defendant pay up or they would fight. Well, they chose to fight, so in her mind they made a new verbal agreement and all was now even.

Maybe she learned that in law school.

[aemom]

On 9/14/2018 at 5:17 PM, AngelaHunter said:

And then, this person who owns a kennel tried to blame the dog's injuries on the dog's negligence/carelessness. The dog was careless! He was beyond outrageous, I hated his stupid smirk, and I really wish JM hadn't been so easy on him or acted as though there was something funny about this. An injury on the pad of a dog's foot is very difficult to deal with and to heal since they're walking on it.  Yes, animals can get into trouble, but the person who is being paid to care for them is responsible. Trying to blame the dog is kind of despicable and certainly is no glowing reference for his facility. I would never EVER go there, since this is a person who accuses animals on his watch of being careless.

I could not believe that he tried to blame THE DOG.  Not a very responsible kennel owner.

The front fencing part looked a bit rusty and I could see that there could have easily been a screw or something there that a paw could get caught on.

 

On 9/14/2018 at 7:00 PM, meowmommy said:

I'm wondering if the dog might have already getting sick when she got there, and that's why she acted out and got into a scrum.  

Excellent theory.

 

On 9/14/2018 at 7:00 PM, meowmommy said:

If you only have liability and not collision, and most owners of older cars do, that's one thing, but if you have zero insurance, meaning not only are you cheating state law but proving you don't give a shit about anyone but yourself, you should forfeit your right to collect a dime from anyone.  And if he really didn't run the light, she would have been able to sue the other driver, too.  Sow.

In Quebec, everybody has to have insurance or you're dead meat.  The insurance companies fight it out in the event of an accident about which insurance pays for what, but because of the "no-fault" aspect, there is no suing for car accidents.

 

The breeder case seemed to be more about the D being angry at the P for not letting him know that his grandfather died and I suspect that's why things soured so much.  11 puppies - that seems like a very large litter.  People seem so obsessed about having pure breed dogs that cost a fortune, but you can get such sweet lovable dogs at the SPCA - usually with shots and spaying/neutering included for a very low price.  I wish more people went this route, but people seem to think that a purebred dog is some status symbol like a fancy car or designer clothes.

Edited September 16, 2018 by AEMom
Forgot about the fence

[babs j.]

I watch every new episode of The Peoples Court but, after a while, I decided I would not watch any animal case - which means I only saw the first episode Friday.  I think the producers let some of the episodes go on so long just for the entertainment value - which, to me, explains case #1.

[SRTouch]

Bad dentures: P here complains that when the dentures D made wouldn't fit he took a hammer to them to MAKE them fit. As she makes her way into the courtroom I'm wondering if maybe she's wearing a fat suit - yet another litigant who appears to have chosen the least possible flattering outfit (and wig) in her wardrobe. Not sure what Jewish denture maker was thinking when he got ready for court. Dude, a white lab coat may be the thing to wear when you're making dentures, but not exactly appropriate elsewhere... and when camera pulls back and shows him from side I wonder if he pulled that wrinkled coat out of the dirty laundry bag. His intro claims P was fitted for her dentures, then waited a year before actually coming to pick them up - says by then her remaining teef had shifted around, so first denture no longer fit - tried to work with woman, but she's looney - oh, and wonders where she gets off suing for 5 grand when she hasn't paid for his work. Ok, right off bat she's disputing not paying. First, she says she needed two crowns and a partial denture - she says she paid $1750 for the crowns, and a $750 deposit for work to start on the partial... so she wasn't running around gumming her food for a year - but was it really a year between being fitted and time she picked up the ill-fitting partial. Her story is there was a time gap while he takes off for a European trip - so it was D's fault it took so long. MM has to cut in and get some dates from her, then questions D about his timeline (wow, dude actually brought her records so JM can check dates herself). Ok - not the year intro alleges - more like 3 months - impressions done in April and she's back in July... need some tweaking. Her story is she gave him an additional $950 at that visit - he says absolutely not - she admits she has no proof, claims she paid cash but lost the receipt - more months go by, - Oct she's back for another fitting - don't fit - 'nother $950 (no proof and he denies receiving it) for readjustment - January another fitting - still doesn't fit - says he asks for ANOTHER  $950, this time she refuses. Says he tried to make the adjustment then and there, banging on it with some little dental hammer, and broke the denture in his hand - big kerfuffle, wants a full refund - he refuses - here they are. Geez, this lady would be great for JJ, as she gives a word for word recital of their argument - well, except I think she's replayed their fight in her head so many times over last 18 months the script may have been rewritten several times. Ah, but what the hey, her recital is entertaining, and MM is fighting to hold in the laughter. Ok, finally MM stops the one woman show and brings it back to the case. Appears records he broght in don't agree with her story. I gather he billed Medicaid for the crowns works and the dentures. Claim for the crowns was denied, but they agreed to pay for the partial dentures - hmmmm, so how much HAS he been paid? And did she make ANY of these cash payments she claims? So..... Medicaid was paying the partial - if it was never done, MM says, she needs to tell Medicaid so they can reopen and investigate any payment made - she doesn't get that money back, it would go back to Medicaid. Her money damages pretty much denied - what she can prove went to the crowns, which were done. Ok, she wants lots and lots for pain and suffering - so time for another one woman show performance. Heck - I pretty much stopped listening, but sounds like a repeat of sane performance - even repeating how she made multiple payments for dentures right after MM tossed out that claim. Apparently, her pain in suffering was the humiliation of paying the money and never getting the dentures - why she had to skip Thanksgiving dinner she was so shamed - so, asks MM, did you ever get the dentures - no - yet, here you are on national TV looking just like you did when you were too humiliated to eat with your family? In a minute she'll be in the hallway telling Doug through judge just wouldn't listen. Nope, case over, go whine to Doug... yep, she does - and comes up with a new line - says D was full of BS like a constipated elephant. Actually, D had little to do with her loss, her testimony and his EVIDENCE did her in.

lemon purchase : P bought a clunker, putting 2/3rd of the money down -  weeks later it quits - D picks up the car - gets it running - but refuses to return car until she finishes paying it off. Now, she says, D has both her money and the car. She wants to unwind the deal and get back the $1500 she paid on the car. Not sure what defense D is trying for, but lots of mud being slung in intro. Says he found out she had been picked up DUI a couple weeks before she took pocession of the car - car ran fine when she claimed it had died - he just got in ancient started right up - oh, and when he went to "fix" car, there was dope in the glove box - hey, car was still registered in his name, so he wasn't about to return it to her til she finished paying and registered it in her own name. Hmmmm, might have been smarter to do it right at the time of sale, you know, simple contract, notarized, and meet up at DMV and get a lein put on the car if she's making payments, and get it out of his name and off his insurance before handing over the keys. Uh oh, as we go to break sounds like we have another performer when we hear D in preview saying P is serving up more whoppers than Burger King. Wow, did I just hear P says she found car on CL and gave D's wife her address so D could bring car to her house so she could look it over - really, giving out her address sounds dumb - and I've never bought a private party used car, but does the seller routinely bring it over instead of buyer going to see it. Anyway, sale made, she hands over $1200 and gets the keys.... says they had a written agreement, but she left it in the car, so when he came and "fixed" it he got her copy. Ah well, he presents his copy,  so we know what their agreement was - she paid the $1200 and was to pay the remaining $1100 by Feb 20th - so, MM asks if she paid off the remaining $1100 - well, she says, she paid an additional payment of $330 on Feb 25th - uh, did I hear that right, is she admitting she didn't live up to the agreement. She tells us she had possession from Feb 13th to March 4th, and by her own testimony she only paid $1530 despite promising to have it paid off and out of his name by Feb 20th. Ok, over to D, to let MM give him a hard time for turning over the car, still in his name and driving on his insurance to a stranger... oh, and a little extra dose of busting his chops because D is an ex-cop who should know better. Ok, he also disputes the $330, says his wife told him she never received it - yet P says she has texts indicating she paid it. MM gas Douglas take texts over so D can read the texts while she gives the P a lecture on getting a receipt when she pays cash. Ok, story we're hearing is that on Mar 3rd (a week to ten days after vehicle was to be paid off and re-registered and insured in her name) she comes out of a resturant and car won't start. She calls D, he comes, car starts right up, and he takes the car home. Can't even call that a repo since it's still in his name. Thing is, sounds like P was talking to wife about the deal and I kind of doubt that's the wife, daughter maybe(?), standing next to him. Ok, now P has a chance to explain why she failed to pay on time.... wth, says she didn't pay because she finally got around to taking the car to her mechanic and he told her it was on its last legs - oh, and did she just say she took it in on Feb 22 (two days after it was to be paid off). So, anyway, she still wanted the car since she supposedly paid D wife $330 3 days later, but guess point is she wanted to renegotiate to get more time because money was going to mechanic - she says it needed $1200 worth of repairs (says mechanic's estimate in car with her copy of purchase agreement when he picked it up and drove it home). Claims she told D about the needed repairs when he came looking for his money on the 24th.... one thing about this one, she sure seems to have dates of when stuff happened - course dates keep showing she failed to pay on time, but do they make her story more believable. Anyway, another week goes by without final payment being made, car dies in resturant/bar parking lot, D goes and gets it. Ok, time for Burger King whopper line. Seems ex-cop got fed of her stalling, and did a little back ground check after the fact. This is when he finds out about the DUI. Ah, but it was all good, P tries to tell us, she had a conditional license and was allowed to drive to and from work - ah, but, says MM, her testimony has her breaking down at a resturant after eating - not on her way to or from work. (Didn't she tell us her sister, who is in court to testify car died, was with her when it died. Does Sis work at same place? Or maybe Sis was driving?) Anyway, now that D is talking, we hear his version of how he retook possession. Says his wife got the call that it wouldn't start - says when he tried, car started - no problem. Says he took car to his mechanic, and asked mechanic to check it out for any problems - says mechanic found the letter about suspended license - along with dope in the glove compartment. Decision time - well decision after some yelling at both for being fools. Decision kind of iffy here. Is D unjustly enriched if he keeps the money? He has either $1200 or $1530 of her money, and has since resold car for $2100 (she was buying it for $2300)... which explains why there's no countersuit - he already resold the car.  His position is he's like a dealer - he had to put up with her shenigans and late payments, then had the hassle of cleaning up the car after he took it back before he resold it.  Nah, I say dismiss her case..... but, after a long drawn out explanation, MM awards the P $730....

roommate fight over rent: oh, not just roommates, but sometime coworkers - ok, usually I recap the intro - then recap the testimony since intro doesn't' match.... not this time - I listened to intro twice and still don't know who's suing for what.... well, P has his claim down to the penny, just scratching my head wondering why (why he would room with D, where he found a gf to let him move in with, why he'd move back in with D - so many questions, and, really, so little interest in hearing the answers). Ok, P  had been in the apartment for a year, but when his old roommate moves out the D takes his place - both guys are on lease - P paying more than since he has the larger bedroom - things fine for a full months. Ah, but then P finds a new girl, rents another apartment where he plans to live with the gf, but says he continued to pay his portion of rent in first place (and D admits P WAS still paying his share even though he wasn't living there.) Ah, then ? happens - D gets caught with hand in the til and is booted from his job. Next month, D can't pay his share of rent - so  P covers $200 of the $375 owed. And that's it, owes $175 for the first month and P wants his share for the 4 months they're obligated for in the lease plus his share of the utilities. Oh, and P's new apartment and gf didn't work out - he's back in first apartment and now D is moved out. Ok, so far D isn't saying much - just agreeing with what P says. Even when he argues he didn't agree to half utilities, when asked what his share was he gets a laugh when he agrees it was half. Then we get into more nonsense - apparently the new gf showed up from New Orleans with kids, dogs, and hitchhiking friend before new apartment was available - for 3 days, or was it weeks, the whole gang was in the first apartment - then D had place to himself when P moved  out - the P is back when new gf didn't work out - then D moved out - but not really as he used place for storage for awhile and just recently got rest of his crap out. Ok, time almost up, and really never got interested. D is obligated for the rent & utilities. Normally, P would have obligation to look for new roommate, but here the lease is almost up. Say you give P the partial month rent plus another for time to mitigate damages - do we expect him to find a short term roomie for the remaining couple months until lease is up. Short lecture for both litigants, then P gets what he asked for.

Edited September 17, 2018 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

Lunatic freak show today.

Dentist case was insane. No way is any lab who makes dental appliances going to charge 950$ for adjustments, and of course plaintiff can't find her receipts. She gets Medicaid, and we know JM is very unsympathetic with litigants suing for money that comes from taxpayers. No matter how BSC litigants are they all seem to know just exactly how to get free money.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Nope, case over, go whine to Doug... yep, she does - and comes up with a new line - says D was full of BS like a constipated elephant.

Shouldn't she have said like a constipated bull? Or maybe she meant a bull elephant? Maybe she doesn't know what "BS" means. Who knows? She didn't seem to be all there.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

lemon purchase : P bought a clunker, putting 2/3rd of the money down -  weeks later it quits - D picks up the car - gets it running - but refuses to return car until she finishes paying it off.

Was this the dumbest, most naive cop in the world? And what was with his silent child bride, decked out in a mother-of-the-bride dress? Appearances can be deceiving, but the wife looked about 18. Plaintiff is a slippery scammer who put on her "Woe is poor little me" face and says there were no blunts or other drugs in the car "to her knowledge." I'm sure some stranger just planted it all there. And of course, all her evidence of payment was in the car when dopey, ridiculous cop repossessed it.  Cop lets her keep the car in his name, when she hasn't paid for it and has a suspended license. How is it possible that a police officer who appeared to be at least 55 can be this stupid? How? Aww, he thought she was very "trusting" or whatever. Maybe he had his eye on the plaintiff, or... I'd rather not speculate.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

roommate fight over rent: oh, not just roommates, but sometime coworkers

Goofball vs. MAJOR goofball. SRTouch has recapped this nicely, so I'll just say that def. is a 25-year old man who couldn't even keep a marginal job without stealing and getting fired and who  feels it's not his obligation to pay rent in a place he's living. I'm eternally grateful I got hooked up before 25 became the new 14.

[meowmommy]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I gather he billed Medicaid for the crowns works and the dentures.

She should be very glad she lives in a state where Medicaid pays for any dental.  Only kids get dental under Medicaid in this state.

I'm trying to figure out the logic of she 'loses' the alleged receipts for money he says she never paid, and he's unprofessional for not having the imaginary receipts.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Nah, I say dismiss her case..... but, after a long drawn out explanation, MM awards the P $730....

I'm just pleasantly shocked that MM didn't give her a sweet mom to pseudo-daughter talking-to like she always does with young pretty girls, and instead yelled at her.

[Schnickelfritz]

17 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Was this the dumbest, most naive cop in the world? And what was with his silent child bride, decked out in a mother-of-the-bride dress?

I thought she was his daughter. All thru the case they talked as if the wife was not there. If she were the wife,  judge had only to ask her the relevant questions (payment, whether they lived together and picking up the car). No need for texts or relying only on his testimony. She also looked remarkably like the ex-cop.