The People's Court - General Discussion

[CrazyInAlabama]

Actually, in the $1,000 for a million dollar repair on the POS car, I am really mean, and I hope that she does start the car, and the fuel line does leak and go up in a conflagration resembling the Great Chicago fire.   

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

How funny because yesterday I was starting to type the exact same thing in my comments, and then she said "had went"--there went my delete button!

I was on pins and needles, hoping against hope that she might get through her whole testimony without failing, but the college student just couldn't do it. Has she never read a book that didn't have pictures? Did she not go through elementary and high school? I really need to learn to starting ignoring this crap, but it seems the more I hear ignorant abominations like "had came/went" and especially "I seen" the more it grates.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I am really mean, and I hope that she does start the car, and the fuel line does leak and go up in a conflagration resembling the Great Chicago fire.   

Ooh, someone who is even more of a meanie than I. Good job!:D If that happened - I picture her running down the street screaming, "Dear Lawd, it's a FIARRR!" - and she survived, she'd be back here suing the mechanic again because he let her take the car.

[aemom]

Abuser and girlfriend case.  Full credit to her for getting away from this POS.  He is too dumb to breathe which is how he blew his case and lost $600.  Good for her for paying him nothing and getting her furniture back.

 

On 9/21/2018 at 5:28 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I find it amazing when things turn around as drastically as they did here. Here I was thinking def. was another slimy sleazy mechanic trying to take advantage of poor woman. Not the case. She expected him to work miracles on her non-running, 17-year old POS car, all for 1,000$.

I was surprised too, and when the D started telling his story, I could tell that his story was probably far more accurate than hers.

 

At least the woman fessed up that she took the TV without permission.  In far too many cases, the D would have said "I don't know what happened to the TV.  I didn't take it."  Wow, TVs must be much cheaper in the US, because there is no way you can buy a 55" TV at Best Buy in Canada for anywhere near $300.  I checked just to be sure.

[Brattinella]

16 minutes ago, AEMom said:

Wow, TVs must be much cheaper in the US, because there is no way you can buy a 55" TV at Best Buy in Canada for anywhere near $300.  I checked just to be sure.

We needed a new TV, and we found one, the Toshiba 55 inch 4K Fire TV for under 300 on sale.  It has all the bells and whistles (way more than we need actually).  Amazon Prime is a wonderful thing.  On topic:  I wish TPC would not be on so early here; I always sleep too late to see it.

[aemom]

1 hour ago, Brattinella said:

On topic:  I wish TPC would not be on so early here; I always sleep too late to see it.

Do you have a DVR/VCR/some recording device to tape it?  I never see the show live because I'm at work when it airs.

[Brattinella]

20 minutes ago, AEMom said:

Do you have a DVR/VCR/some recording device to tape it?  I never see the show live because I'm at work when it airs.

You are correct.  I'm just a doofus who forgets to record it. :(

[aemom]

4 hours ago, Brattinella said:

You are correct.  I'm just a doofus who forgets to record it. :(

I just record mine to tape the Series and it just tapes it whenever it's on - I don't even have to think about it.  What I like about that feature is that when shows come back after they've been on hiatus, they just magically turn up on my DVR.

[meowmommy]

17 minutes ago, AEMom said:

I just record mine to tape the Series and it just tapes it whenever it's on - I don't even have to think about it.  What I like about that feature is that when shows come back after they've been on hiatus, they just magically turn up on my DVR.

Same here.  I have it programmed to record only new episodes, so I miss rerun season.

6 hours ago, Brattinella said:

On topic:  I wish TPC would not be on so early here; I always sleep too late to see it.

It doesn't even start here until 3 pm, Mountain Standard Time, which is the same in the summer as Pacific Daylight Time.  And I never watch it live, so that I can FF past the commercials, Levin, the hallterviews, etc.  So it's at least 7 pm Eastern time before I even start watching.  When I lived back East last year it came on at 11 am, which meant often I waited until SRTouch's recap was up so I could follow along, like Cliff Notes.  :)

Edited September 24, 2018 by meowmommy

[SRTouch]

1. crazy car deal: listened to intro twice - still don't know what case is about - course, nothing new there, as testimony seldom matches intro anyway. About all I could tell is these two are fighting over a junker that P claims she bought, but title never transferred and D repo'd - oh, and preview clip has MM reciting her "money doesn't leave this hand without receipt" mantra. Testimony begins with P selling her old junker to D. She's older than D, and says she knew D because P used to work with D's mom and grandma. Anyway, P says she heard through the grapevine that D needed a car. P was in process of buying herself a new(er) car so decided to sell her car to D. Ah, but inept folks at the dealership screwed up her loan application, so her new car deal falls through. Ah, but she had already made the deal with D, sold her 2002 Chevy to D for $500 (huh, why is she suing for over 2 grand if they're fussing over a 500 buck rust bucket). Now we get the "receipt" mantra, as the '02 Chevy was transfered without pesky paperwork. Soooooo, D bought and paid for the 16yo Blazer, takes delivery, transfers title, even says she insured the thing. P says when her financing fell through with the dealership, D asks if P wants to undo their deal. But, P says, she told D their deal should stand and D should keep the Chevy - but then D must have twisted her arm because P says she ended up buying it back. Ok, now things are getting far out..... started out with P hearing D was in desperate need of a car, but now P is saying D offered to sell her back this old Blazer because D already had a car and no longer needed the Blazer. 'Bout now MM changes sides and we hear from D. First D denies things happened the way P said, but then proceeds to tell us the same story. Says when P's deal at the dealer fell through, P cried to D's mom and that's why she got to feeling bad - but she had purchased the Blazer with her friend and business partner to use in their business. Seems they hustle and sale some energy drink, so need the Blazer to make deliveries. Her business partner is here, so gets some screen time. (Side note - can't decide which of these two have the biggest hoop earrings.) Anyway, now is where the stories diverge. D says she felt bad about P being without transportation, but she had bought, registered and insured the Blazer and wanted it for her energy drink business.... oh well, she wasn't willing to sell it back to P, but figured she would let P use it until she worked out a new financing deal for another car. So, D says she let P drive the car temporarily - but then things got rocky when P wanted the title signed back to her - supposedly because P wanted the insurance back in her name. Convoluted story - not sure why she didn't just offer to add P to her (D's) policy and collect any increase in premium... heck how much would liability insurance run on the 16yo $500 junker... ok back across aisle to let P add more to her side of the story. She claims their new deal wasn't that she was going to drive the Blazer while looking for another ride. She says she bought it back - but says it cost her $750 to buy it back - the original $500 purchase price than an additional $250 because of the time and expense D wasted getting thing registered and insured. 'Course, like first transfer, no receipt or paperwork - oh, but unlike first time where P gave up title, D doesn't provide the title when P buys it back. Another receipt mantra. So, now P has chevy, but no title, and a kerfuffle takes place... I'm believing P, and wonder if it wasn't D's partner/witness who came up with the plan to get the money and the car - oh, right, forgot to say that since title stayed in D's name D ended up taking it back. Sooooooo, no receipts or transfer paperwork - heck, even the bank records where P says she withdrew money to buy back the car don't match her timeline.... not looking good for P - did they exchange texts about their various dealings - and what about P's witness, does he have something to add or is he just along for the free lunch. Ah, yes, she has texts! Oops, texts don't seem to help P much as we head to another commercial break as so far D has explanations for what we're hearing (and I'm leaning towards her side now.) Yep, case dismissed (wow! Says P in disbelief)... texts don't help and only actual evidence, bank withdrawals which could be for anything, doesn't match P's timeline... Guess we'll never find out why P is claiming  $2100+ in damages over a $750 car deal.
2. landlord/tenant security fight: ho-hum, same old familiar story. From intro, sounds like tenants broke lease and left early but still expected more than landlord returned from their deposit. Also claim landlord thought he could get away with keeping more than he should because they moved out of State. Landlord says they left damages and a broken dishwasher behind, says he was being generous returning as much as he did. Tenants asking for a lot of money - $2715.86 - wonder if they're after double or triple because of bad faith from landlord. Ok, long time tenants - living there since '09 - gave notice they be moving and scheduled a walk through for the end of July. Walk through done on July 31st where Landlord noted carpet stains, peeling paint (seems tenant had painted) - says they even tested appliances - including dishwasher - and during walk through P says he agreed to paying for any damages - paying a fair amount. When asked, P agrees landlord sent a letter derailing his reason for withholding part of deposit - says he received it in a FedEx package Sept 7th. Over to Landlord, Defendant, to hear his version before we get into the list of damages. Ok, I've worked doing maintenance/painting for an apartment complex and also been a renter for years before buying this place, so I've seen apartments trashed when people moved out - but also seen landlords who expected to bank the deposit no matter how well the tenant left the place. Have to say, when MM asks dude what the damages were and D starts dancing he seems like the greedy landlord trying to bank the deposit. Sounds to me like this family, a couple with 3 kids, were there long term and so far not impressed. We haven't delved into his list yet, but what I've heard so far is carpet, worn out dishwasher, peeling paint (P admits he didn't do good job painting the basement), inoperable smoke detectors.... all this after 8 or 9 years, and we don't know how long since place was last painting or how old carpet, dishwasher, smoke detectors were. Ok, going down list - says dishwasher approximately 7yo, and new tenant complained of an odor so he replaced it... first he junked it because of an odor? Quick google search tells me to expect a dishwasher to last 7-10 years (oh my, does that mean mine is on its last legs). Nope, dude, nada on the dishwasher - especially not replacement cost. Hope dude's pictures are better in person, cuz they don't show me anything on the TV. Maybe I heard their move in date wrong, but thought they had been there since '09 and dude hadn't shown me squat - I wouldn't even give him the paint in the basement if P hadn't already agreed to paying. MM brings dude up to go over the pictures - anybody else think she was fed up with his "they failed to tell me about it" and was about ready to back hand him with the picture folder after he admitted the only thing they did wrong was not notifying him. Oh boy, and one of the things he just admitted he would have been responsible for fixing, but now they are because they didn't tell him about the problem - well turns out P has a text notifying him of the problem. Next, MM asks him about what he considers "normal wear and tear" - and D asks like he's never heard the term before. Ok, MM has heard enough to rule, she's just questioning how they came up with $2700+ when $1300+ was withheld - yep, like I thought, their jurisdiction lets them sue for double if landlord acts in bad faith (which I figure is true for most, if not all, of these damages). Rough justice - MM figures $600 for the paint, but says rest of the amount withheld was without basis, and in fact bad faith - so she doubles that and awards P $1464 (plus of course court costs and interest). Oh, and after ruling MM points out that not only did D nickel and dime and withhold more than he should have, but he also failed to notify tenants within the time alloted by the statutes. Hmmmm, she says P didn't base their complain on that but that it was a valid point - wonder if, had they focused on his not meeting the statute deadline, they might have received double the WHOLE amount he withheld? Dude still playing word games in hallterview.
3. not paid as promised: P says she was promised $10 a head for each person she referred to D for a CPR course, and only received partial payment - suing for over $3300. D argues she already paid P more than she should have. When MM asks, in preview clip, why D paid anything, D answers, she's very slick. Anyway, if I'm getting this right, D says she was willing to pay if P set everything up, found the place, registered people, etc and payment would be based on number of people who attended. Instead, says D, P just gave her number to some nanny organization and did none of the scheduling etc. Oh no, another litigant who wants to give her prepared statement instead of responding to MM. Seems to me, da'judge ought to automatically penalize litigants who start their testimony with "first of all, I'd like to say..."  ok, who thinks this woman is going to have a whole different vocabulary once her prepared statement runs out? Doesn't take long for MM to establish that there was no written agree, D very verbal, though P says she does have texts where they talked about payment. While P looks for her texts, MM crosses the aisle and asks D what the deal was. Way back when I used to be involved in CPR training scheduling, and what D us saying sounds right (but, like I said, this was way back while I was asks time duty - I retired in '93. Basically, an individual or organization gets a class together, finds a suitable place, and a certified instructor shows up with their resuci-Annie and Red Cross approved lesson/tests, gives a Le ture, written test, practical exercise and then, depending on what level of certification, a recording Annie that prints out a graph showing student actually doing breaths/compressions correctly. Being active duty, our instructors were volunteers and didn't charge.) Anyway, back to this odd business arrangrment. D thinks P is bringing her students, but after paying P a couple grand she finds out that all P did is find this nanny organization, and it's acting the organization that has been referring students and setting up the classes. She says all P was doing is periodically calling the organization to find out how many people had taken to her the class, and then billing D at the $10 a head rate.... I missed it, is D countersuing for some of that 2 grand back? Oh my, and if D is to be believed, the nanny group was collecting more than she knew about, so she has since started charging them and stopped paying P. Ok, unless P found something in her search of her texts, I'm thinking these two never had a meeting of the minds - and even if they did, D had the right to cancel/modify their open ended agreement... not sure if P is deliberately acting stupud, or I'd she really doesn't understand what MM is saying.... nah, like D said way back when - P is slick. MM thinks this is a lot closer call than I do, she says it's close, while I think frivolous nonsense with P not entitled to the 2 grand she already received. Case dismissed.

Edited September 24, 2018 by SRTouch

[SRTouch]

summary 1 not usual recap

1. Wants to be paid: watched this mess before coffee - gave up as when D can't shut up arguing about how video conference while driving is a bad idea. D in case is young guy who has found a niche market for his delivery "business." Apparently does 99.9% of his business online - including tracking/paying employees - had me wondering how often these two met in person face to face. P originally applied to be a driver, but changed career paths and became D's administrative assistant. Neither of the litigants are happy with the way things work out - and neither have any of that pesky evidence stuff. Not sure which is the more annoying - P suing for hours worked admitting he was too lazy to keep track of his hours - or D, who is a hustler who runs his business empire thru a variety of apps on his phone and whose defense is he shouldn't have to pay because P was a crappy employee. Problem MM has - P deserves to be paid since he did work - but how much did he work. He has nothing - P has a stack of phone records,  but didn't even bother to highlight calls to and from his "administrative asst." P.  Other problem - both litigants too much to handle before second cup of coffee - especially when I haven't finished the first. MM gets frustrated with the two, feels D has to pay something - but admits she really is just taking a wild ass guess on the amount.... Wonder if she would have just tossed the case and awarded nothing if D didn't waste time arguing about how he can safely drive, train new drivers, conduct business on the phone, and freeking do video conference interviews, all at the same time - in NYC traffic. Case thankfully short - and only funny part is MM making her ruling and walking away while D is shouting out, "don't I get to say anything else?" MM answers while she continues to walk, "no you don't!" And D goes, "wow, that was fun!" And then we get cross aisle arguing between the litigants... you just know Byrd would have stepped between them and shut them down almost before the second muttered word. D storms past Doug in hall - P happy, as well he should be, since he got $300 of the $400 he asked for and as far I saw he proved nothing.

2. ah - dog case... maybe I'll just mute it and watch the two pups:  ok, what I gather from intro before I skipped ahead - P hired D to train her two dogs. Problem is, she alleges he abused and neglected her dogs while they were in his care for a month while not being trained - among other things they were injured, and her vet said severly dehydrated, had diarrhea and worms when she picked them up - oh, and something about using electric shock during training - not shock collar, which might be reasonable with qualified trainer, but sounds like almost a cattle prod electric wand. Intro had me thinking of Cesar Milan and how he would sometime take problem dogs to his training center to work with them away from no-nothing owners. Here, going from Defendant's intro, reason she brought dogs to him was they were fighting.... didn't watch much - from the look of the dogs this lady has working dogs and she needs lazy lap dogs..... duh, working dogs go looney toons when they're penned up not getting needed exercise - to make it worse her older dog looks obese and the younger is still a puppy. (Recently saw video on FB of 5 sheep dogs playing a game where they "herded" each other around a field.) Then she tells us her reason for hiring D to train the dogs - she's disabled and unable to train them herself - oh, and somebody at the dog park ( yep another one with dogs who fight amongst themselves hauling her problem dogs to a dog park to let out pent up energy) recommended D as a trainer. Ok - heard enough,  time to zip ahead... first case a bust, but at least short - this one ran long and I skipped most of it. Case finally over - P gets the money spent for training back, but not full amount she asked for. Unfortunately another pair of dogs going home with an owner who really doesn't match their needs. Ah, left it running and heard shorty on the street - seems trainer lost because his contract guarantees he'll return the dogs trained - they weren't trained - P gets the money back. added comment- went back and started to watch what I skipped - good grief, D just said a big part of why one of the dogs stayed with him for a month was to treat the older pup's separation anxiety - so, dude was paid big bucks - like $2600+ - in large part to treat separation anxiety - but is in court saying no such thing, dog's can't get separation anxiety.... oh and he was 3 days late returning them dogs because "it didn't fit in his schedule?".... skipping the rest - again - after listening to this guy for a couple minutes I wouldn't let him train/care for a pet rock and figure MM may have been just looking for a way to slap his wrist with the return of the training fee.

3. Bumper cars in the parking lot:  has to be another short case, since they wasted time on dog case I didn't watch. P claims D hit his car while P was at a standstill - only asking $500, so either minimal damage or that's his deductible. Nope, apparently cops were called - and according to D cops recommended they not involve their insurance since damage was minor. D doesn't deny fault, but says he already gave P $500, and an additional $500 shouldn't be needed for tiny bump. Ok, pretty much any body work is pricey, so figure D is out of luck if P has receipt or estimate. Ok, might not be much of a case - but P is an entertaining story teller. Ok, across aisle - D also fun to listen as he admits he hit the guy - very soft spoken and an accent, but still entertaining.... Maybe I'm just starved for entertainment after first two cases now that I've had some coffee... ahhhhh, but then I wasn't fast enough zipping through the commercials and I hear resident funny man saying "bumper - he hardly knew her" - geez, was that EVER funny?!?... ok, P had an estimate and texts where D had agreed to pay - problem is he later decides estimate too high - nope, like I said earlier, any body work is pricey... anyway -  D agrees to pay - P gives the go ahead to do the work - meanwhile D talks it over with his brother and decides price too high - P ends up paying for the work and now D refuses to pay... only sticking point is the estimate  when D agreed to pay was $800 and change, he paid $500, so would still owe $300+... soooo, how come P is suing for an additional $500 instead of $300 - ah the old "wasted time" - nope, not happening, D has to pay for actual damage not wasted time... even though case is pretty much a non-case, it's easily today's best. 

Edited September 25, 2018 by SRTouch
Added comment to dog case

[meowmommy]

Thanks for the great recaps, SRTouch, but it's two days in a row where the cases are too boring even to snark about.

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I hear resident funny man saying "bumper - he hardly knew her" - geez, was that EVER funny?!?

Ummmm.....no, nyet, nein, non, nee, nem, ne, nil, anio, and a thousand other languages.  Levin was never interesting, talented, attractive, charming, witty, or funny on the best day he ever had.

[aemom]

Monday, Sept 24:

The car case was a Iittle nuts and I believed the two young women. I think she loaned the car because the woman was a friend of her mom and she felt backed into a corner.

10 years ago, we needed to renovate our bathrooms. We wound up hiring the son of my dad's friend. Big mistake.  There were many things that we weren't happy with, but felt uncomfortable trying to get things resolved. Since then, I will only hire strangers to do work, never again will I hire a friend or a friend's friend. That goes for selling a car too - only to strangers.

The landlord was totally nickel and diming that family. He was a jerk and I'm glad that the judgement wound up being more than the original security deposit. 

The P in the CPR case was delusional.  She really thought that she was going to get paid for the rest of her life for making phone calls to retrieve a headcount that she had nothing to do with achieving in the first place.

At least everyone was pretty well spoken most of the time and I don't recall any horrific outfits either.

[Brattinella]

9 hours ago, SRTouch said:

resident funny man saying "bumper - he hardly knew her" - geez, was that EVER funny?!?

I would dearly love to see a litigant slap the crap out of him for that.

[Taeolas]

16 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I hear resident funny man saying "bumper - he hardly knew her" - geez, was that EVER funny?!?...

 

People's Court is now on Facebook and other social media sites; I wonder if they would respond if people started writing out complaining about that insulting unjoke on their FB page? 

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today was just a bunch of liars.     First the woman lied to the police about identity theft, and it was to get the cable and other financial charges dismissed, so she could clean up her credit, and buy a house.     The broker needs to be in jail too if he knew about that.   Of course, plaintiff couldn't get financing, moved in early, and there was no back up plan if the plaintiff didn't get financing, and no lease in writing.   

I did like when Judge M. said she was sending the entire tape of her admitting she made a false police report to the local police, and district attorney.    P. claims the broker never talked about renting the house, because she couldn't get financing to buy it (what a shock that wasn't).   So p. gets her $4,000 for closing costs and processing fees on the house.   

The idiot d. with the used car lot lets a woman buy a 2007 Nissan Murano (I think that's what they said) and drive it off the lot before he gets financing approved.    She didn't even send him pay stubs until the next day, when it's discovered that her $3,500 a month income was a big fat lie.     I lost interest after the car dealer was so stupid, and don't know if he got the car back from her, or if it ever got registered or insured (I'm seriously doubting that).    The only funny part was how much the defendant and his grandson looked alike.    

The middle case was a woman who tried to get her bus driver license, and didn't pass the test, wanting everything back from the driving school.    I don't know how that came out, but hope she didn't get anything back, and hope she never passes her driving test, because she's too stupid to drive a bus.     I also don't think she'll react well to the chaos on the bus either.    I can just imagine her as the next bus driver busted on tape punching out a student, or getting lost in the school parking lot. 

Edited September 26, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The middle case was a woman who tried to get her bus driver license, and didn't pass the test, wanting everything back from the driving school.    I don't know how that came out, but hope she didn't get anything back, and hope she never passes her driving test, because she's too stupid to drive a bus.

She didn't get her money back. The Russian def spoke better English than she did, as she struggled to form a coherent complaint. She "feeled" the test! The instructor talked fast and she thinks slowly. She couldn't "understand" about the dipstick because she's female! We know how well that argument goes over with JM. Gee, when I was young and had cars, I knew how to check the oil with the dipstick and how to change spark plugs and I don't even have a penis, which according to plaintiff is a prerequisite to grasping even the most simple mechanics. That she's too dumb to understand instructions or pass a test doesn't mean someone else has to pay for it.

 

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I did like when Judge M. said she was sending the entire tape of her admitting she made a false police report to the local police, and district attorney.

She said she was going to contact the Rochester police and I really need to know if she did it. I'm picturing her telling them, "I had a litigant here who was dumb enough to admit before millions of people that she lied to the police and made false reports." "Yes, I lied to the police." omg. Both parties were so stupid I can't believe they've survived as long as they have. Plaintiff "like-ded" the house, so she just moved in! The big chest tat, multiple facial piercings and bizarre wig were... interesting, as was her calling JM "dear" and the real estate broker seems totally unaware that all real estate contracts must be in writing. Wow.

 

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The only funny part was how much the defendant and his grandson looked alike.    

I thought it was his daughter until I heard differently.

 

17 hours ago, Brattinella said:

I would dearly love to see a litigant slap the crap out of him for that.

His lowlife, disgusting and dumb disrespect towards women is allowed to go on and on. In this perpeturally offended, SJW, PC world I just don't understand that.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Can we talk about 'penile territory' for a minute?

The plaintiff in the driving school case told JM that she didn't know the difference between the left side and the right side when it came to where the oil dipstick was stored because she's a female, and JM replied that that has nothing to do with being a woman, that it isn't penile territory. I still haven't recovered from the laughing fit yet, and  that was after  having to deal with the plaintiff accent. She sounded like that character from The Sopranos who dated Christofuh.

[AngelaHunter]

17 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

She sounded like that character from The Sopranos who dated Christofuh.

Adriana was dumb, but not quite that dumb. Where did the plaintiff live (I missed that) that she said "feeling" instead of "failing"?

Edited September 26, 2018 by AngelaHunter

[WhitneyWhit]

I lost count of how many acts of fraud had been committed during the first case. Let' see: there were at least four or five false police reports, then the whole get the financing in mom's name before they find out she's dead master plan.

 

The silly little woman thing who just can't be bothered to learn her left from her right, and wants to drive a bus but not actually learn anything about them and everyone should understand this because she's just a silly little woman thing was just precious.

 

I, personally, thought the dumbass car dealer got what he deserved for being so stupid.

[SRTouch]

Whew, combination of boring cases and having to close this week is playing havoc on my court TV viewing. Typically, when I close I get to bed around 4am, wake up at 10 to drink some coffee, recap TPC, then take a nap before work. So far this week, the cases have been putting me to sleep instead of waking me up. Sat down a few minutes ago with coffee in hand, and first case is some fool suing coworker/buddy. Seems bud, defendant, was heading to Vegas and P gave him 11 bucks to gamble with. D hit it big at black jack, but refuses to split the winnings.... yawn, think I'll take a nap and watch later - still haven't watched recording of yesterday's cases.

Edited September 27, 2018 by SRTouch

[DoctorK]

Not much fun today on PC. My only perverse entertainment was the last case. Plaintiff let his dog's knee swell up to bowling ball size (JM questions this size, vet holds up hands showing the poor dog's knee joint was about that actual size). He finally went to a vet, vet says that he needs a blood test to make sure the dog is safe for anesthesia for x-rays, tells plaintiff how much it will cost, plaintiff says go ahead. Vet determines the problem is cancer. Plaintiff pays bill, takes the dog to another vet who amputates the leg. Now plaintiff wants a refund of five times the amount he paid to vet number one because second vet wouldn't have required the blood analysis before anesthesia. Dog is now OK as a three legged pet, plaintiff just cannot shut his mouth, talks over JM, refuses to listen to her explanation why he loses, and won't stop talking in hallterview. Plaintiff loses finally. What a lousy and irresponsible pet owner.

[Katy M]

1 minute ago, DoctorK said:

Vet determines the problem is cancer. Plaintiff pays bill, takes the dog to another vet who amputates the leg. Now plaintiff wants a refund of five times the amount he paid to vet number one because second vet wouldn't have required the blood analysis before anesthesia.

Wait?  He sued because the vet was exercising caution? 

[PrincessPurrsALot]

Litigants,

The People's Court was pre-empted in many areas by a press conference held by the US President.  That is fact. No problem mentioning that the show was pre-empted in your area. 

Any opinions regarding the holder of that press conference or the value of that press conference, including referring to the US President by any nicknames, whether or not you personally find them derogatory, is getting into politics.  PTV has a No Politics rule.  

Let's keep it to the show.  Back to your regularly scheduled snark! 

If you have question regarding this rule, as always, PM your kitty mod @PRINCESSPURRSALOT.

[patty1h]

Shanika Dean is being sued because plaintiff thinks she's renting apartments but doesn't legally have a right to.  Boring.  I'm more interested in why Shanika is dressed like we're living in 1995 and she's going to a Kid n Play concert after the case. Those earrings, oversized chains, hair and grill look so out of time.  Her look is from any Salt & Pepa video from back in the day.

Edited September 27, 2018 by patty1h

[VartanFan]

I feel like judge MM is letting some litigants be far too salty.  She used to call out attitudes and this week the woman with the $4000 on the rent-to-own case call her darlin' or something with major attitude and now Spinderella (thought the same thing, patty1h) is being snotty.  

[aemom]

On 9/26/2018 at 12:07 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Today was just a bunch of liars. 

And fools!

The 1st case with the house that was almost bought: I was so distracted by the defendant's crooked mustache and the plaintiffs facial piercings, that I had trouble following along, but wow - lying to the police, lying to the bank.  Idiots, both of them.

The 2nd case with the bus lessons.  I am so embarrassed when a woman says that she couldn't know about something because she's a woman.  The reason that you don't know something is because you haven't learned it.  Period.  It is not, and never will be, because you are a woman.  I do think that she was a bit of a dimbulb, but I do believe that the Igors may have been somewhat shady, so I don't pin it all on her.

The 3rd case with the car that was almost bought.  The defendant was a fool and she was a dreamer to think that she could afford that car.  She was lucky not to be stuck in a situation where she wound up buying it and then had it repossessed for non-payment.

[AngelaHunter]

I got the Sep 21st case repeated today, with the stupid, big-schnozzed, grinning fool who is suing the girlfriend he only "mildly" punched. What the heck is going on? I choose to blame Levin the Slimebucket.

[DoctorK]

23 minutes ago, AEMom said:

The reason that you don't know something is because you haven't learned it.  Period.

In this case, I think that simple stupidity played a major role.

[aemom]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I got the Sep 21st case repeated today, with the stupid, big-schnozzed, grinning fool who is suing the girlfriend he only "mildly" punched. What the heck is going on? I choose to blame Levin the Slimebucket.

Me too.  :-(

[Cobalt Stargazer]

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I got the Sep 21st case repeated today, with the stupid, big-schnozzed, grinning fool who is suing the girlfriend he only "mildly" punched. What the heck is going on? I choose to blame Levin the Slimebucket.

You must be on a different feed. I got the one where the plaintiff was at a stop sign and may or may not have run it, and then three months later she met the same woman who was across from her in the intersection that flipped her the finger. The plaintiff had pictures, but JM said that all they showed was two cars really close together, so she couldn't prove the defendant had hit her.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Even worse in the car damage case, they lived in the same huge apartment complex, and one claim was the defendant rammed the car bumper into her license plate holder.  

[seacliffsal]

Well, here's a lesson we can learn from a recent episode.  When being questioned by the judge, it's okay to say "dear" in a very disrespect tone, but if one wants to have the judge jump all over them, they should say "miss" in a respectful manner...I could not believe that after the plaintiff said "dear" in such a demeaning way that JM actually said it was alright.  I learn something everyday.  AND, the plaintiff was such a scammer that she had no problem filing false police reports in order to improve her credit report.  

[SRTouch]

1. fancy ceramic table damaged: P wanted a imported ceramic table moved, and hired D for the job. Unfortunately, table was dropped. Now P wants $4400+ for a replacement table. D doesn't deny liability. His argument is that he offered to repair or replace table. P chose to have it repaired. At first, P was happy with the repair - so D paid for the repair. Now, P has changed his mind, calls repair a lousy job, wants a new table imported from Italy. D would have been better off to have skipped the tie - that thing is looking a good 6 inches short. Oh my, and guess his feelings were hurt when he got the notice he was being sued - dude wants $5,000 for defamation, lost wages and - the ever popular - pain and suffering. I get the feeling part of why P is suing is because he feels young kid ignored his advise about how to move the table, and ended up damaging it. Seems P had moved the table 5 times in the past without any problem, but when he told D how to do it, D ignored him.... right about now, MM tells D to stop with the bobble head... ok, D wants to wrap the ceramic tabletop - good idea, but failed in execution - while wrapping the top, he turns away and tells Jason, his partner/helper, to hold the top - top slips out of Jason's hands and ceramic top cracked - REALLY cracked, MM doesn't need her magnifying glass this time... even I can see the damage on my tiny 50" TV (Remember when  that would have been called a wide screen and need 3 guys and a dolly to move)... P says at first he agreed to let D try to get it repaired - if it COULD be repaired, but says he was never happy with the result. Ah, P's wife comes up - sounds like this was a special table - pretty much irreplaceable as it was a special order, made by her family in Italy, and shipped to these folks in the US. Seems it held a special place in their family, so much so that the kids are already fighting over who gets it when the parents croak. D gets a chance to talk - freely admits liability. Says P agreed to let him pay out of pocket for the repair instead of going through his insurance - and Ps agree. Says at first P was amazed that the repair was so good, but then started to worry about the repair failing in the future. If I've got the figures right, at this point D is hundreds of dollars out of pocket, P was happy with the repair, but now wants thousands of dollars because of what MIGHT happen in the future... ok, I was already wondering about P's story - on one hand they're talking family heirloom, OTOH table commissioned and used in the family resturant for years - until he retired and closed the resturant - and he's asking for 4 grand for a replacement. Guess we need to see a pic of the repaired table - which is exactly what we get after a commercial break. Ok, dueling 'after' pictures - noticeable crack in P's photo that magically disappears in D's pic. Ok, D said this was a multi-step process, first he paid for crack repair, then an artist to match things up - so is P's pic from before artist was finished? Or, is P right and that the angle and lighting sometimes masks the repair - seems P is right - repair plain to see from right/wrong angle... Another admonishment for D - this time for shouting out "Miss" - and a warning this is not a football game where he can shout from the sidelines... Ah, three of MM's pet peeves - being called 'miss,' not respecting his elders, and you just know that she would have let that slide without the football comment if that was a 24yo girl rather than a guy... Ok, getting to the discrepancy... P is saying he was never happy with the result, while D says he was amazed how well it came out - but that he could hear P wife in the background arguing the repair wasn't doing it for her - and MM is saying it doesn't matter that D paid hundreds trying to make it right, the repair HAS to be satisfactory to the customers because it was D's screw up that caused the damage. Ah, D says he has a video of P after the repair. What we have is P saying he's very unhappy with the repair, and Jason, D's helper/partner, arguing about how much he spent on the repair - being disrespectful to old man customer (if you sue, I know lawyers, and you're not going to win, bro) - hoboy, not sure why D thinks this video would help his case - recording of Jason being disrespectful to elder is NOT going to play well with her Honor, and then P says in another call Jason used questionable language (resorting to saying "busting my balls"). Ok, decision time.... and again with the family heirloom nonsense - these Ps have no problem giving the repaired table to D as long as they can get replacement cost - to me that is NOT a valued heirloom. Doesn't mean they shouldn't get a replacement, just that I don't buy this as an heirloom. Anyway, MM awards replacement cost... then tosses the frivolous countersuit.
2. not paid for work:  Ps claim they did some work for D, who was doing nonprofit work for disabled/homeless vets. Apparently, D was organizing building tiny houses for vets.  Great, but plaintiffs say they expected to be paid $1525. D says problem is that P don't appreciate that it takes time for their payment - says P threw a tantrum when not paid as soon as he expected, so she fired his ass. Says she's wasted so much time dealing with this nonsense the Ps' wages have been offset in wasted time and hassle... uh, nope, that argument never works,  folks deserve to be paid for their work, and demanding money owed for work does not equal harrassment (unless demands go overboard).... ok, no testimony yet, but I'm wondering if this might not be a made up case to raise awareness for her nonprofit - which, going by preview clip, is taking old walk in freezers/shipping containers and converting them into tiny houses for disabled/homeless vets... ok, maybe not a made up case - Ps were brought in by this nonprofit when well meaning, but clueless, none-construction type volunteers screwed up the build out of the organization's prototype. Ps brought in to undo and redo the volunteer screw ups. Ah, and if this had been a made up case, D should have shown up with pictures of the prospect and the rest of the board of directors (at least have brought the director who actually hired P). Ok, everybody on the board - and the two plaintiffs - are retired vets - so we get the obligatory "thank you for you service". Ok, back to maybe it IS a fake case - on defense side increased awareness for the nonprofit, and on P side dude recently passed general contracting test, so good for future business, and when decision is he should be paid for work done TPC foots the bill. Ah, but MM maybe throws a wrench into the plan (if it is a planned case). Knowing a thing or two about construction because of her family background, she questions P doing this type of work before his license has been issued.... have to wait til after the break - sometimes alternative housing legally bends/breaks/skirts the rules as jurisdictions catch up on new ideas. Uh, no, license question is a serious one from da'judge - one which P dances around trying to argue he was not working as a contractor but as a laborer... nope, pretty questionable unless he's arguing that as a laborer it was the organization's job to pull any needed permits and get his work inspected - otherwise he could potentially be putting a disabled vet in a deathtrap. Oh, and MM had her staff do the research, as she just mentioned that the work he did DOES require a license in their jurisdiction... acording to MM, their county jurisdiction is stricter than the rest of the State of Florida - the law is his work was done illegally and should not be paid for... oh, and the tiny house prototype has been sitting unfinished since he walked away from the job. Okkkkkk,  P does win - sort of. He gets court costs and a tiny part of what he sued for - seems part of his 'billable' hours was spent shopping for materials - shopping doesn't require a license  - but pretty much everything going else he did does - even demo' - their county says he doesn't get paid for that work without a license. Winning P leaves with $30.... hmmm, wonder if plaintiff's might have been better off arguing this was a prototype model and never meant to be used as an actual dwelling.
3. tow case - sort of: ok, according to P intro, his car was towed to D's lot, and while there was damaged when it was broken in to. Says when he pointed out the damage, D told him it was from the break in, had a police report of ghe break in, sue him - not his problem. D apparently doesn't deny car was damaged in his little - but argues he's off the hook because of the break in. P wants close to 2 grand. D intro totally different story - says car was towed after an accident - damage from the accident not any break in - again, not his problemo. Uh oh, don't think D's story is going think of fly. Seems P knows the bit about phone camera not just for dirty pictures (nah, in my case it's mainly for pictures of my critters) - when he gets to the lot on first business after the tow, he spots the damage and takes pictures. Uh, sounding like another nonsense intro. Tow driver who brought the car in has a new story - says when he was dropping car off at the yard his 'wheel lift' caught the bumper, which is what caused the damage - still says not his fault as the reason his lift caught the bumper was the messed up suspension that was the reason for the tow (nothing about any accident or bogus break in where the breaker-inner dude must have vandalized the car.) Still sounds like damage would be on the driver if it happened in the lot as he was unhooking car - could this be one of the rare cases where tow company loses? Ah, yeah here's the break in - but that's just distraction - it happened,  but D isn't claiming damage is from vandalism - no D from the car damage which made car incapable of rolling on 4 wheels so, damage to bumber/light unavoidable by tow guy. Oh and sounds like P isn't even asking for repair of original damaging which caused car to be tow - but for some reason IS asking for the tow and storage fees. Ok, and - after tossing out tow fees - P wants more in repair costs than hooptie is worth (but your honor, his car was in mint condition - if you ignore the fact the 4th wheel fell off as he was driving around at 130 in the am.) Yep, tow company loses - but loss capped at value of 3 wheeled '02 Saturn hooptie - a grand. D says in hallterview he was willing to settle, but P wanted WAAAY to much.

Edited October 1, 2018 by SRTouch

[Florinaldo]

I don't care it the table was made in the very picturesque town of Positano (plaintiffs made sure to repeat it a few times during their testimony to try and impress the judge) or that you arbitrarily slap on it a "heirloom" label. Shouldn't the principle of depreciated value have applied?

Like @SRTouch said, I think that MM displayed her usual bias against younger litigants, slamming them for things others get a pass on (although I believe he called her "ma'am", not "miss").

The younger partner however needs to get some business sense into him, especially regarding best practices in customer relations. You can disagree with a client without saying comments as immature as what he said, that would be more in character for a frat boy arguing with a house brother. And he kept piping up, saying " it was not my fault", which revealed much about his character. Perhaps they should remove interacting with clients from his duties.

[AngelaHunter]

I guess we're all getting the same cases now? I got the unlicensed contractors, both dressed in garish Hawaiian shirts that were painful to the eye, suing a director of a non-profit veteran's organization for money owed for work. She hired them to remodel a shipping container into a "tiny house" (all the rage now) to house veterans in need. Plaintiff did do considerable work, according to him, and says he applied for a license after def hired him, but as of yet he doesn't have it. He also didn't seem to understand that in order to do electrical work in FL, a license is needed because we're talking about peoples' live being in danger otherwise. He was told he would get 1000$ but would have to wait 5 days. No, he says. He wanted 1500$ right then, so came here. He gets 30$ for the time he spent shopping for supplies plus his court costs. I know we've seen other handymen and unlicensed contractors get paid here, so not sure why this was the verdict. Maybe because of the electrical part of the job? I dunno, but he should have taken the 1K.

A couple sues so-called "movers" (arrogant/annoying/silly/goofy boy whose daddy buys him a moving company to play with and it seems that 24 is the new 15) to move them. No written contract, of course. Who needs stinkin' contracts? JM has to admonish silly boy to stop his irritating bobble-heading and had to smack down his arrogant witness who shouts out something I didn't catch, but it seems he was agreeing with JM and added, "Yeah, man" to his cheerleading. He is informed he's not at a football game and the manner of address is "Judge" and not "man". I guess the Boy Moving Company was cheap but we all know the cheap comes out expensive, right? Anyway, boys break a ceramic table handmade and imported from Italy. I thought it was hideous but each to his own. Witness boy(partner/smart ass)thinks he's in the mob ("Why you bustin' my balls?) and was incredibly rude to plaintiffs when they spoke on the phone. Plaintiffs should know that boys (or Daddy) have a veritible army of lawyers they can call on! Boys get someone to fix the table for 200$, but the crack is still highly visible and plaintiff's kids won't be happy when they get a cracked table after the 'rents go to the Great Beyond. They get over 4K to replace this table.

Then boring tow case. Plaintiff's Saturn, which had reached the age of majority in many places,  was in great condition, well, except for the busted axle which necessitated the hoopty being towed after it conked out in the middle of the street. Tow truck def admits the only way to tow the heap would result in the bumper becoming unclipped, due to the broken axle. They need to pay for repairs, but plaintiff also wants the money for the tow and the storage back, even though defs did tow and store his POS car. I guess he thought he, unlike everyone else, deserves to get those services for free, maybe because the tow truck driver wasn't sufficiently genial? He does not.

[CrazyInAlabama]

In the tiny house/containers case, it terrified me that the unlicensed contractor did electrical work, because the containers are metal.    He's lucky he's alive, and I hope a real, licensed electrician was brought in to inspect, and fix the electrical installation.      

The movers who broke the table were idiots.    That table looked like something my mother would like, she's also taste challenged.     I bet the adult kids are drawing lots to see who gets stuck with that thing in their house someday.   

The tow yard operator certainly had an original story about why the bumper was damaged, it was a stupid story, but at least he had one.     I'm assuming the people from the tow case live in snow country?    If so, I'm sure the Saturn body and undercarriage was a lot older, and more corroded than it should have been because of road salt.   I'm surprised the suspension only collapsed after all of those years.  

Edited October 3, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[babs j.]

These days seems like saying "Thank you for your service" is like saying "Bless you" when somebody sneezes.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I didn't know tables could be made out of ceramic. It seems like if it was being used in a restaurant, the design would get all scratched up, because the plaintiff's wife said that customers were always asking to use it when they ate there. I don't know anything about how to make furniture, and I get that it was an heirloom that cost a lot of money, but it seems kind of weird that they would have this super-expensive table for random strangers to eat at.

[Florinaldo]

The ceramic table was decorated in a style that is in vogue in some parts of Italy, perhaps mostly as tourist bait, although I don't remember if I saw anything like that in Positano itself. It also was used for a long while in their restaurant, which adds to the appearance of an unreasonable judgment since they were compensated at full price. There is a good possibility they will not buy a new one and just pocket the money; I share @CrazyInAlabama's view that each kid must be reluctant to be the one having to house that monstrosity. 

41 minutes ago, babs j. said:

These days seems like saying "Thank you for your service" is like saying "Bless you" when somebody sneezes.

And woe to the person who forgets to say that while on air; they will be deemed unpatriotic. When such statements become obligatory Pavlovian responses, they lose just about all meaning.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The only interesting case was the new driver, driving her mom's rental car, had no insurance added, and wasn't on the paperwork, slamming into another driver because she probably either didn't look before changing lanes, or just changed anyway and thought he would back off.      What was she wearing?    Something from the Xena Warrior Princess line of tops?    I can't believe she thought the rental company wouldn't notice the damages.    I love her lame whine about taking Motrin every day since the lawsuit notice arrived.   

I did enjoy the eviction case, where the d. said she was going to get a $200 fine for dumping the squatter p.'s junk on the curb.   And it turned out that someone picked up the junk from the curb, and didn't have room to store everything inside, so some was left outside, and disappeared.    So it wasn't the d.'s issue at all.   

In the contractor case from yesterday, I bet the woman was the spokes person for the company, because woman owned, and vet are categories that get you more contracts, and grants.    I'm guessing that the company has used under the table un-licensed contractors before, but the two men wouldn't agree to get ripped off by her and the others in the company.     

Edited October 2, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[Bazinga]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The only interesting case was the new driver, driving her mom's rental car, had no insurance added, and wasn't on the paperwork, slamming into another driver

Such a nasty attitude, total obnoxiousness and JM "likes" her, "wants to be friends" with her, "enjoys" her, "wants to hang out" with her.  Another example of JM liking a certain type of young female litigant (the "cool" girl) where she would never like the person or tolerate the attitude if they were  a young male.  This repeated favoritism makes me think less of JM.  She was awful in attitude and demeanor, a liar, didn't care about the property of others (the rental car company), played the victim card, and was totally disrespectful in the way she spoke to the Judge and obnoxious in what she said, in her way of speaking, with nasty body language to boot.  She needed to be slapped down not smiled at, laughed with, and told how wonderful she would be to know.

Edited October 3, 2018 by Bazinga

[SRTouch]

slept in today - so  only recapped 1st case

rental dispute:  P sues after landlady locks her out and tosses her stuff to the curb. Novel defense in the preview clip - unrepentant D says, yeah I illegally tossed her stuff out in the snow, but she still owes me money. Have to wonder if she would try that defense if the money was coming from her instead of TPC. Ah, another match made in the hell known as CL - at least it doesn't sound like P was moving in with D, but was renting a 3 bedroom apartment from her. Hmmmm sounds like this could have been a fun to watch case - if only P could tell her side. As usual, MM started out by letting P lay out the back story - but P jumps around so much, and leaves out minor details, like not paying rent and she had already been legally evicted, in her rush to tell how her stuff was ruined. After second time where MM has to stop her because she's glossing over important points, she switches to defendant's side of the aisle to ask about the eviction. Yes, eviction process had been started and hearing held - P ignored the vacate order date. Seems word came that D's daughter was going to need a place - so she told P that if P moved out D would forgive the back rent. Seems pretty reasonable, telling a month to month tenant, hey, you are behind in rent, if you leave by leave by the first - which was 2 weeks away - you can forget paying what you owe. Anyway, P not only doesn't leave by the first, she squats in the place waiting for official eviction hearing. Hearing takes place - and really most of today's case has already been adjudicated. Judge at that case let P stay in place rest of the the month, but ordered P to be out first of next month. So - summarizing - P owed $500 for back Feb rent - paid nothing in March while waiting for March 7 eviction hearing - used security up on March rent while waiting for April 1st when eviction judgement said she had to be out - ignored the vacate order date - April 2nd D changes the lock and tosses P's stuff out. Now P is here suing for her security plus the value of stuff ruined by being out in the weather. I imagine eviction judgement had already settled rent and security issue that both sides are suing for today. Only part to be settled today would be damages to P's stuff and any damages found to the apartment after P was gone as security apparently already used up. Wonder if we should even be hearing about some of this, as it sounds like there's a pending case for D putting the stuff out. Anyway - both sides act like they're above mere mortal law... though I'm sympathetic with landlady who says she knew at the time what she was doing was illegal. Apparently D just skipped the eviction appeal process and getting court permission to dispose of P's belongings when she found P ignoring the vacate order. And P, nope, no sympathy - she was a month to month tenant and was locked out over 6 weeks after receiving notice (and an offer on a break on the back rent if she had left in 2 weeks). Wonder how much longer she would have been squatting there had D not illegally taken matters in her own hands - remember all that time P was squatting D's adult daughter was waiting to move in. When asked why she ignored order to vacate - P says she knows the system and knew she could continue as a squatter past the date she was ordered to be out... aw, she's a serial squatter (and home health care provider), hey next time (when daughter finally is out of place and it can be rented to a paying tenant - think about doing a back check, lady. You can do it online a lot cheaper than an eviction.)...  Ok, case less than half over, but not sure what else there is to say. Yeah, sympathetic to D - not so much to P - but D has to receive a hand slap for self help. P also needing a hand slap since she ignored court order to vacate. Don't know if P can establish value of belongings that were damaged - heck turns out they weren't outside very long before she moved them to a storage unit - any damage took place when she later moved them from the borrowed storage unit and left the stuff outside at a relative's house (no doubt already planning to sue for new stuff). Does D have proof of damage to apartment after she tossed P's stuff - right now I'd call it a wash (even though I figure D is getting the short end because of 2 1/2 back rent being forgiven in eviction process - plus any damages above security which went towards back rent). Anyway, pretty much everything out of P's mouth is irritating while D is comic relief - MM even calls her Charles Bronson referring to all his vigilante roles, and D is all - yeah, I broke the law and will be happy paying the $200 fine when I plead quilty to locking out da squatter. Rough justice - oh, this is good - MM says the eviction judgement forgiving all that rent is out the window because P didn't live up to her side of the settlement. Ok, now D is getting the back rent plus provable damage (but she has no provable damage). Soooo, not quite a wash - P gets nada, but D gets the $500 in rent from Feb.

Hmmmm, in hallterview Doug calls D Charlton  Heston - is that what MM dubbed her? I think Bronson makes more sense.

47 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

Such a nasty attitude, total obnoxiousness and JM "likes" her, "wants to be friends" with her, "enjoys" her, "wants to hang out" with her.  Another example of JM liking a certain type of young female litigant (the "cool" girl) where she would never like them or tolerate the attitude if they were  a young male.  This repeated favoritism makes me think less of JM.  She was awful in attitude and demeanor, a liar, didn't care about the property of others, played the victim card, and was totally obnoxious in what she said and her way of speaking.  She needed to be slapped down not smiled at, laughed with, and told how wonderful she would be to know.

 

Worst example of this was the college aged girls who rented a house for a party, trashed the place, and MM laughs and jokes about the great games the vandals came up with to tear up the place,  than minimized damage award instead of making a statement to the darling girls that this should never have happened and WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!

Edited October 2, 2018 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

I don't understand why someone with squatters, or someone who had a house trashed by vandals goes on TPC, since Judge M. will coddle the defendants, and act like their criminal acts were cute.  

[Bazinga]

40 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Worst example of this was the college aged girls who rented a house for a party...

My "favorite" example was the butcher slash stripper tenant defendant who picked her nose in front of the judge, admitted being threatening to her landlord, whose brother was on video being threatening and was allowed by the Judge to demonstrate how  it couldn't possibly be her ass print on the couch cushion with a butt print on it.  JM was laughing and being all friendly with her and came down hard on the reasonable landlord plaintiff for some unfathomable reason. 

Edited October 2, 2018 by Bazinga

[babs j.]

I wonder if Judge M's daughter were the plaintiff in the first case if she would try to be so chummy with her - I don't think so.

[Florinaldo]

I am starting to wonder if MM might be slowly morphing into a variant of JJ's arbitrariness, just with different biases.

[aemom]

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Hmmmm, in hallterview Doug calls D Charlton  Heston - is that what MM dubbed her? I think Bronson makes more sense.

That is correct.

I did admire the defendant who said that she didn't give a crap what happened, that she was throwing her out.  The plaintiff was just so clueless and had no idea that she had thrown herself under the bus with her lawsuit.  As I often say: "You can't fix stupid."

 

On 10/1/2018 at 5:46 PM, AngelaHunter said:

He gets 30$ for the time he spent shopping for supplies plus his court costs. I know we've seen other handymen and unlicensed contractors get paid here, so not sure why this was the verdict. Maybe because of the electrical part of the job? I dunno, but he should have taken the 1K.

I'm pretty sure that it was because his county in Florida is very strict about these things (she even read from the law).

 

On 10/1/2018 at 5:13 PM, Florinaldo said:

Like @SRTouch said, I think that MM displayed her usual bias against younger litigants, slamming them for things others get a pass on (although I believe he called her "ma'am", not "miss").

The boys were squirrely and acted immature and stupid (they don't even have contracts for their moves), but he did say "ma'am."  And MM laced into him with "it's not ma'am, it's judge," and I thought to myself - we've had tons of litigants call you ma'am.  I know that "miss" will send you off the deep end but since when is ma'am a problem?

 

I was also surprised that she liked the clueless brand-new-driver defendant.  Really?  She enjoys the chutzpah of someone who tries to pull all sorts of underhanded things and wants to hang out with them?  

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

rental dispute:  P sues after landlady locks her out and tosses her stuff to the curb.

Although I found both litigants to be unlikable in the extreme, their honesty was refreshing. "No, I didn't move out when I was ordered to, or pay rent while I squatted because I know the system." Landlord: "Yes, I illegally threw out all her stuff and I don't care." Kind of cool.

Video editing kerfuffle: I wasn't interested in the case and was just waiting for JM to ask plaintiff why he appeared to be swaddled in a blanket.

5 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Such a nasty attitude, total obnoxiousness and JM "likes" her, "wants to be friends" with her, "enjoys" her, "wants to hang out" with her. 

OMG, that bugged me. "No, I don't have insurance on the rental car. Momma doesn't believe in insurance." *shrug* And then she's a total liar about how the accident happened, and then won't even pay the plaintiff a measly 200$ to fix his car after she crashed into it, probably while texting or updating her FB status. She doesn't know which way is up, but is an expert on body work. No shits were given by her about anything, except for making sure her hideous, blue fake talons showed to best advantage. That skin tight outfit wasn't doing her any favours. She holds herself in high regard, was disrespectful to plaintiff and to JM, yet JM would love to "hang out" with her(really, JM??), even though she came out with a couple of JM's pet peeves - "Pacifically" and "mineS". I must disagree with JM: Listening to this person's "Aren't I cute?"drawling and bad grammar was making my ears bleed.

[DoctorK]

11 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

She holds herself in high regard, was disrespectful to plaintiff and to JM, yet JM would love to "hang out" with her(really, JM??), even though she came out with a couple of JM's pet peeves - "Pacifically" and "mineS"

Agree, I was appalled that JM liked this miserable, lying, irresposible, ignorant piece of shit.  While JJ seems to be descending into grumpy dementia, JM is sliding into senile grandma " aren't these little kids so cute" land.

Edited October 3, 2018 by DoctorK

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

While JJ seems to be descending into grumpy dementia,

Maybe, but she would have ripped this snotty bitch a new one, not gazed admiringly at her and inflated her delusional ego further, while gushing how she'd love to hang out with her.

JM is a 56-year old, educated woman, prosecutor and judge and she would like to schmooze with a "miserable piece of lying, irresposible, ignorant piece of shit"?  What would they "conversate" about? Fake nails? Inappropriate clothes? Maybe JM was being uber-sarcastic? I would like to think so, but no doubt I'm dead wrong.