The People's Court - General Discussion

[Silver Raven]

13 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Uh... how long ago was this? I used to be that guy - smoked 3 1/2 to 4 packs a day for awhile there. Didn't smoke until I was in my mid 30s, but started during Desert Storm deployment and was a regular chimney for years. Haven't smoked in what - 10 years now - can smell cigarette smoke on someone from across the room - and still have the occasional urge to light one up (thankfully, such urges now few and far between - but I just know that if I smoke 1 today I'll be buying a pack tomorrow.) 

The late 80s.

[AngelaHunter]

Skipped Cretins Abusing Dogs.

In the timeshare case, the defendant was unbelievable. He and his wife are "timeshare junkies" who own 6 of these things. He took a deposit of 800$ from the plaintiff for his unit in the Caribbean but there was a hurricane and the resort was closed. Def doesn't think he should give the deposit back, but he did seem a little vague and "out there" as there was significant delay between him hearing a question and answering it, so I guess he didn't understand that he has to. Doug in the hall also commented on his lack of understanding, and his lack of caring before def. toddled off. You'd think someone who owns 6 timeshares would just give the damn money back.

Niece suing her horrific-looking, scary, Frankenstein-ish auntie and auntie's boyfriend who looked as though he lives on the street: Niece lets boyfriend borrow her car, because "her car was blocking his(and she was too damned lazy to move it because she's a "pregnant female") so she let him take her car. Auntie is a thief and liar, who freely admits she lied to her lover-boy - "I lied" she states -  and took 40$ he directed her to pay the niece for the 240$ the repairs cost and put it in her own pocket. After admitting she's a thief and liar she expects JM to believe anything else she says. Niece is knocked up. I guess the baby daddy was too busy to come and support his baby momma. Anyway, she has a fine tongue piercing but can't speak English properly - "gaven" she says, and I wish JM had corrected her. She's pregnant! She's a pregnant female! and can't take all this distress! She provides a video of her screaming and fighting with Auntie and boyfriend. It's very charming. Defs have to pay the measly 240$.  The End.

[aemom]

The funeral case was amazing.  I don't understand what kind of family gets into physical altercations like this and seem to think it's no big deal - especially AT A FUNERAL HOME.

The P with the soffit case - I knew he was dead meat the moment he tried to explain a soffit to MM.  He was a cheap ass.

The guy with the security deposit was so boring.  She should have sued for more - the $200 she paid the kids to clean up plus the cost to repair the damage.

The case with the dog being mauled to death was sad.  But at least in this case, the D was 100% apologetic.  He felt terrible, you could see he was sincere, but she wanted him to pay for a new, expensive, different breed of dog.  She also sued for shots and grooming for the dead dog which was silly.  He said that he was happy to pay her something or get her a new dog, but didn't know what was fair.  MM gave a generous (her words) $500 for a 9 year-old shipoo (I think that was the breed?).  They both said that they were OK with each other when meeting with Doug

The D for the timeshare was delusional.  How would he not have to refund the deposit?

The car accident with the pregnant P.  If the word "pregnant" had been used for a drinking game on this show, we would not be able to leave the house until the next day or have to call 911 for alcohol poisoning.  She must have said it at least 6 times in that video.  I'm glad that MM spelled it out to the D that it was his job to chase after the guy who caused the accident, not hers.  Again, another family suing each other.  Is it really so hard to get along and treat each other fairly?

I watched these 2 episodes back-to-back and there was an extremely high level of mutilation of the English language in them.  I had to stop counting at one point.  At least the missing teeth factor was low.  I only recall one litigant.  Clothing violations were average.   :-)

Edited November 17, 2018 by AEMom
Typos

[AngelaHunter]

The litigants in today's cases were mostly so repugnant I just skimmed - 16 year old Chrysler plaintiff bought and she wanted def "alley mechanic" to fix it. He has no upper front teeth. She leaves the junkpile at his home for nearly two years because he refused to fix it. JM doesn't buy that and finally extracts the info that plaintiff has no license so used def. as free storage. She junked the heap and I have no idea what she wanted or if she got it.

Two single mothers. A whole bunch of kids. They are each other's kids' godmothers and plaintiff says def. got divorced because she has been having an affair with p's brother(who has a baby momma already)for 10 years. Def denies that and declares they was conversating for 10 years but they wasn't dating. They was just talking.  But that's all academic because Lothario is in the slammer now. That was all fine until they start fighting over a phone bill. Then def's windows are busted out and plaintiff tells cops that def. abused her own daughter which sounds rather unlikely because d's daughter was at camp at the time of the alleged abuse. P. is such a genius she warns on FB she's going to smash the window(and flatten d's tires and bust up the mail box, etc)and also posts d's phone number and says that the def. gives blowjobs to anyone for free but that she's not any good at it. Def. gets calls from a gentleman seeking fellatio and he doesn't mind her lack of skill. Plaintiff is a mother of four whose language and behavior is disgusting but still, I'm sure all those children will be just fine. Plaintiff spends two days in jail. Def gets awarded some money for the window and I think some for the defamation. I don't know how much and by that point I didn't much care.

Edited November 17, 2018 by AngelaHunter

[aemom]

On 11/17/2018 at 12:39 AM, AngelaHunter said:

The litigants in today's cases were mostly so repugnant I just skimmed - 16 year old Chrysler plaintiff bought and she wanted def "alley mechanic" to fix it. He has no upper front teeth. She leaves the junkpile at his home for nearly two years because he refused to fix it. JM doesn't buy that and finally extracts the info that plaintiff has no license so used def. as free storage. She junked the heap and I have no idea what she wanted or if she got it.

Two single mothers. A whole bunch of kids. They are each other's kids' godmothers and plaintiff says def. got divorced because she has been having an affair with p's brother(who has a baby momma already)for 10 years. Def denies that and declares they was conversating for 10 years but they wasn't dating. They was just talking.  But that's all academic because Lothario is in the slammer now. That was all fine until they start fighting over a phone bill. Then def's windows are busted out and plaintiff tells cops that def. abused her own daughter which sounds rather unlikely because d's daughter was at camp at the time of the alleged abuse. P. is such a genius she warns on FB she's going to smash the window(and flatten d's tires and bust up the mail box, etc)and also posts d's phone number and says that the def. gives blowjobs to anyone for free but that she's not any good at it. Def. gets calls from a gentleman seeking fellatio and he doesn't mind her lack of skill. Plaintiff is a mother of four whose language and behavior is disgusting but still, I'm sure all those children will be just fine. Plaintiff spends two days in jail. Def gets awarded some money for the window and I think some for the defamation. I don't know how much and by that point I didn't much care.

 

 

The first case was about a couple who break up about a month after they move in together (dating 6 months prior to that).  They are arguing over who paid what, and when, and who is due back what money now.  MM listens to all the complaining for a while because she has to kill time with this case, and finally says that she's not going to figure out all the pots and pans of their relationship.  D winds up paying the P some money relating to a car.

I believed the toothless alley mechanic that she left the car in his driveway all that time, but it was interesting that she actually had a letter from Firestone stating that he had done one of the repairs wrong.  Most litigants never have that crucial piece of evidence.  In the end, I think it was a wash.  I chuckled that he was wearing a shirt that he had clearly just unfolded from the package, but kudos for wearing a decent shirt which most of the other litigants today were severely lacking in appropriate court clothing.

@AngelaHunter  did a bang-up job of describing the final case which included the fashion crime of a black shirt with lacing on the shoulders highlighted by the straps of a blindingly white bra.  The grammar atrocities were too numerous to mention (though AngelaHunter highlighted several of them).  Prison, window breaking, child protective services, blow-job offering - just an average days for these folks.  Just, wow.

Edited November 19, 2018 by AEMom
Typo

[zillabreeze]

Yowza!  Today was an uprecidented Parade of Desperation and Janky Denistry!

First case had weird little dude throwing money at SSM.  Both had tore up teef and black spots in their mouths.  Bizarre little Romeo was raining credit cards on SSM and wasn't even getting any hoo hah!  Dumbass.

Middle case teeth were okay, but plaintiff is another person for whom incarceration is just another thing on the week's to-do list.  Makeup on defendant sidekick was borrowed from the Faye Dunaway kit on the "Mommie Dearest" set.

Third case has double methheads fighting over a hoopty.  MAYBE three teeth between the two of them.  Do these people really kiss with the stankass mess going on in their faces???

We need to bring back the gavel system. Today was easily 3 1/2.

[AngelaHunter]

Holy moly. Levin must have dredged the Bayou to find the first litigants. I'm kind of lost for words. Plaintiff is like a cartoon character, but still he was lookin' for love, but in all the wrong places, I guess. Another great testimonial for dating sites, in this case "Plenty of Fish" (little aside but someone I know used that site after a divorce. She found someone who promised to get her anything her little heart desired even though they never met and he would even buy a car for her daughter! All she had to do was give him her banking info and he'd deposit the money. Excited, she was until I gave her a little talking to. Looking back, I wish I'd kept my mouth shut) Anyway, plaintiff finds def, a vile, hard-rode, horrendous hag who, like many others it seems, use dating sites as banks. Call me unromantic, but I find it hard to believe she picked plaintiff for any reason other than that she could hit him up for some dough. He "hangs around" her but they never kissed or nuthin'. She gets in a car accident, the repairs are 6K so plaintiff gives her the money as a gift, she says. However, she hires her lowlife daughter's b/f to fix the car and he never does. Does def. sue him, JM wants to know? Well, no, of course not. 6K is nothing to her. Hard-rode Hag has two disgusting daughters who squatted and squirted out EIGHT kids between them, then decided they didn't want any kids after all, so gave them to Granny. She expected JM to feel sorry for her over this. Nope. Plaintiff gives her a credit card on which she racks up bills and paid daycare for "them kids" but oh, plaintiff forgot that some of those bills were his.

Then we had a gross, scary, evil beast who appears here in a sleeveless, low-cut, XXXL baby-doll top which did her no favours. What do these litigants see when they look in the mirror at the ensembles they've chosen to appear here? She's suing her former employer for a whole bunch of money, but she can't remember how much exactly. Maybe she worked 3 1/2 hrs, or maybe it was two. She has a bad memory and I guess thinks her shark-like smile will win over JM. Def hates her with passion and after listening to her for five minutes, so do I. Plaintiff has a suspended license, no insurance, lies to the cops, etc etc and she gets arrested, which I"m sure was nothing unusual for her. She was only in the slammer overnight, so what's the big deal? We find out she's an habitual felon, liar and is totally shameless. JM informs her that her credibility is "garbage" and awards her a fraction of what she wants. Good riddance!

Last litigants appear to have been reeled in from some holler somewhere. Plaintiff sold her ex-boyfriend - who is a stupid, mumbling, pony-tailed complete loser - a 25-year old Jeep for which he never paid but 100$. She trusted him, you see. Loser says the antediluvian heap conked out (who would expect that?) when he was joy-riding with his creep loser friends and of course, he's a loser with a capital "L",  can't afford to fix it so decides he won't pay for it. Plaintiff was smart enough to write up a contract with the little creep, so pay for it he will. He continues mumbling in the hall, but I checked out.

[SRTouch]

Not a stellar day - guess I need to continue my vacation from recapping TPC.... exes fighting -  runs a little long skipped most of it  👎👎 online puppy fiasco didn't even make it to D intro before hitting FF👎👎👎 car deal nonsense - skipped after I heard preview clip - idiot supposedly paying $900 a month for an 8 year Volkswagen 😥👎👎👎

1. almost married girlfriends breakup: once again money doesn't buy you love. Just from preview clip and intro - dumpy girl (how long is she going to wear that book bag/back pack) showers $$$$ on more attractive girl, comes home to find belongings packed up and locks changed. Suing for 3 grand for furniture she purchased, security deposit on the shared appartment she was illegally locked out of, and the tires she put on D's car. First thing I thought when I saw defendant was this girl is high maintenance, but maybe it's just that she and her new gf (the one with blond semi-mohawk) are going clubbing after court - oh, and while more attractive than dumpy P, D is sort of scary looking - just a feeling, but when I hear D intro claim P was abusive I thought to myself both these women look more than capable of "physical altercations." D intro also claims P threatened to kick her out of their shared residence - guess she figures that allowed her to give P the preemptive boot. Ok, once clown finishes the intros I'm already losing interest. Sooooo - predict liberal use of FF button will be made. Relationship history has me losing what little interest I had - these two were moving in together a couple months after meeting through mutual friends... so when MM asks where these fools' braincells were when they decided to move in together I hit the button and zip ahead. Cases like this belong on JJ - JJ would deal with it in 2 minutes - about how long I actually watched - while MM wants the whole sordid story and offers counseling. - I didn't even stop for decision and hallterview.
2. Dog breeders case: as I was fast forwarding through first case I caught P walking in - my Lorrie Morgan certainly hasn't aged well - bring it back to normal speed and learn P is suing over a golden retriever puppy online deal.... ok, at least it's not a dog attack or some fool living in an apartment in the deep South buying a sled dog - still, I think it's time to get out the red dot and play with my kitties. Anyway - not interested - oh, guess not a dog breeder, but failed shelter adoption confusion - zippety zip zip
3.  Skipped before intros started

Edited November 20, 2018 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

SRTouch pretty well covered the first case. I have to comment on "Epiphanee"!? If she has a sister, I wonder if her name is "Revulashun". Parents, before you decide to give your kid some stupid name because the word sounds pretty, (I'm waiting for an "Aphasia" or more likely "Affashya") do us all a favour and look it up in the dickshunery. Even if you don't know how to spell it, Google will help. Anyway, Ephiphanee had a major goatee/beard thing going on(!!). Another one who comes here with her backpack firmly strapped in place. She admits her name is not on the lease of the love nest because she has a criminal record. Oh. Sadly, JM does not ask the nature of its crimes. Such a trio of classy and charming ladies. The lumbering def bends to take her damned shoes off! The mile-high stillettos she was sporting were painful, I assume, but hey - a girl's gotta look good for her big TeeVee appearance. Maybe there's a reality show in store for her! JM was disbelieving and made her put them back on. Suffer, bitch. "I'm your Daddy, hoe" is on a text and I just couldn't take any more, especially after I heard that a 6-month old baby is involved in this disgusting mess. Levin the Uber-Slimy Scumbag was peeing his tighty-whities with glee at this sordid, revolting mess. JM hated them all.

Didn't want to hear about dumb cretins still financially rewarding backyard breeders. Skipped.

Last case - major bore. More adult men who have cars they can't afford and get them repossessed and idiot plaintiff rents one out to stupid idiot friend because of course he can't buy or rent a car since his credit is shot. Def is so stupid and so desperate he said he paid 900$/month for a 7-year old Rabbit. Haha!  He also can't drive without racking up all kinds of tickets and getting the car booted three times. I've been driving all my life and never yet had a car booted. Both of them are wearing matchy-matchy salmon-hued shirts. Cute. Plaintiff is too damned lazy to open his mail, which contains a stack of tickets, so he's asking only 705$ for them. JM informs him, after a break during which she opened the envelopes and added up the fines, that they come to much more, but tuff shit. He can't be bothered opening his mail, so he loses the additional funds. Former Hall Clown? "Def is a LOUSE." You need to stop being Levin's puppet. I think the last time I heard someone called a louse was some 1935-era James Cagney movie. I guess Levin is a traditionalist. JM hated these litigants too.

[CrazyInAlabama]

JM really needs to ask the questions we want to know about, criminal background and exactly what the crimes were, and in the case of the apartment plaintiff, why she doesn't get her beard removed.   I loved it when the defendant took off her shoes, and JM asked if it was so she could be ready to fight.   

I had to laugh at the last case, when an idiot was so stupid that he didn't open the ticket notices, and add them up, and I couldn't believe that the defendant was paying $900 a month for that ancient Rabbit.  

The second case was a total loon, vs. a total tool, with the man obviously getting the Golden Retriever puppy for resale, and there is no way he gave that dog away after paying $800 for the adoption fee.   Oh, and JM is wrong, the return to the rescue clause, instead of rehome by yourself has been enforced in court many times before.   I remember the famous case of the daytime talkshow hostess, who got a dog from a rescue with that clause, and gave the dog to someone she knew, and the rescue found out about the rehoming.    Then the rescue made it very public, and they were awarded the dog back, and they rehomed the dog with another family.   I think in that case they had a clause about small children around the dog, because it was a small breed.   

I bet that man easily got twice what he paid for that puppy.   And if you abruptly change their food, they will take a humongous dump on you, your couch, your rug, and anywhere else.   I think he only took the puppy to the vet to get a health certificate for resale, and to get shots updated for the same reason.  

Edited November 21, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[aemom]

Monday's episode - just wow!  @CrazyInAlabama and @AngelaHunter summed up the cases very well

The first case with the strange little man and his not-girlfriend.  He gives her a credit card and she says that it was a gift to her.  If it wasn't a gift, then she would have gotten the money from someone else.  Why?  Why would anybody give her free money?  She had rotten teeth and was taking care of EIGHT grandchildren that her daughters don't want to parent anymore.  How is she a good catch in anybody's book?  I am speechless, which is not easy to make happen.

Then there was the woman who is owed money for a job she did.  My favorite part is when she can't remember why her license was suspended.  If my license were ever suspended, or I was ever arrested, I guarantee you, I would remember why until life leaves my body or dementia kicks in - whichever comes first.  I was disappointed that the Ds didn't bring in enough proof of why they lost clients because of the P, because I didn't want to see her get anything back.

Finally, there was a super short case of a woman who sold an ex-boyfriend/neighbor her 1993 hoopty for $2600!  Who pays that kind of money for a Jeep that old?  He paid her $100 and then never paid her again.  "Aw shucks, I dinen pay her no more money after the car broke."  She gets her $2500 and I hope she uses that money to get some teeth.

[Megan]

POF dude looked like Billy Bob Thornton, Sling Blade era and also Vincent Price. Grandmax8 was obviously a scammer. She met him on dating site but he was completely mistaken in thinking they were dating!

 

The eviction/break up girls cracked me up because they both definitely have a type!

Edited November 21, 2018 by Megan

[CrazyInAlabama]

The rerun of the man with the porch awning was hysterical.   The poor contractor actually had to send his workers to the dump to search until they found the original awning for measurement and pictures.   The houseowner was so delusional, and even Doug couldn't convince him that he was wrong.    The plaintiff is still convinced he was ripped off, and Judge M. ignored him.   I hope everyone who saw this episode writes down the plaintiff's name and address, and refuses to work for him, because he's never going to be happy with any job done on that house.  

[SRTouch]

1. dirty laundry: I gave up on this case before it really started. P claims to have had a hundred thousand dollars laundromat business that he sold to d - but says he didn't really sell it - dude was way - way - behind on paying his rent, doesn't even know the figure, but landlord won a 50 grand + settlement - then he starts talking a bunch of nonsense about how this non-sale was supposed to work (part of the deal, according to this guy, is that he gets to do his personal laundry forever and ever for free - not sure how that works, but he says that perk is worth 10 grand). When he started this yakity yak I hit the button. This should be a simple contracts case - for a business worth as much as he claims they should have been both represented by counsel - apparently not, judging from comment by shorty, these guys skipped lawyers and wrote their own contract. I zip ahead to 16 minute mark to find P still spouting nonsense, now going through the amateur do it yourself contract quoting sections.... and MM is saying this case is nonsense, P still sputtering as MM gives up and rules for defense. Hallterview - P wants to retry the case, Judge wouldn't let him talk yada yada - vows this is not over, guess he plans to appeal to - someone somewhere... D happy of course, and gives Doug a laugh when he exclaims "it's another great day above ground."
2. Family fight over settlement check:  just your typical court TV family drama -  uncle gets "settlement check" - gets niece to deposit money because he doesn't have an ID, 'sides he knows he's going to be in prison soon, anyway - figures letting niece keep it is as good as a savings account... niece says uncle told her to use money for his lawyer and that she could tap into the money if she needed to - she did - money gone by time dear uncle gets released. Ok, this one is kind of fun. Uncle just about ready to take the bar after his vast experience getting arrested and going to jail/prison (apparently that's his career path). Problem is, despite knowing all the words, his story isn't making sense to MM - you know the person who is actually a lawyer with actual years on the job. Anyway, uncle agrees niece paid his attorney 5 grand, but then she was in the wind with rest of his $4700+... leaving him sitting in jail even though, at least for the trial period, he says he could have been bailed out. - he couldn't reach her from jail and he says she stopped responding to his lawyer. Sooooo, he ends up convicted of possession of stolen property and sits in jail for next 4 years. When released he tracks down dear niece - she gives him a grand and says rest is gone. Uncle says he doesn't want to make her look bad, they just had a dispute over remaining balance, and he doesn't want to talk about the dispute - well, dude, you're suing her, you sort of need to tell us about the dispute oh well, time for MM to hear from niece anyway. Her story is pretty much as stated in intro.... says uncle told her to use the money to take care of family - so, after paying his lawyer she divyed up the money, giving some to her brother, some to her mom (his sister in law), etc, everybody got a chunk except poor ol' uncle who has gone back to prison, again. She took it as a gift to the various family members and she doesn't see why she should give it back. Ok, losing interest fast. Uncle should get something back - but how much? He admits she put money in his prison commissary account - but argues that wasn't from this money - no that was bail money that had been returned.... I don't know - I must have zipped through something a should have heard - to paraphrase the great Burt Grummer from Tremor movies, "I have been denied critical - need to know - information" - but not interested enough to go back and give it another listen. P wins - he gets back the  $3779
3. sweet 16 party fail: P hired D to entertain at her daughter's sweet 16 BD party - says part of entertainment was to be a photobooth, but it was inoperable - wants couple grand refund. D says booth worked at beginning of party, but quit when a couple unruly guests bumped it. D offered a hundred dollar rebate. Ok, problem with plaintiff's case is they actually want more than they paid. They say there were three parts to the contract - D was to provide the photo booth, a dj, and an emcee.  They admit they got the dj and emcee, but say instead of doing what they were hired to do they were trying to fix the booth. Ah, but D has problems of his own - mainly his mouth and total failure to show up with a defense. First he wasn't even there, and is basing his defense on a typed, unnotarized statement from one of his guys who worked the party. His testimony doesn't even match the worthless typed statement from mystery employee who is a noshow today - he had to work, you see, instead of course ingredients to court on case involving a couple grand  (something tells me this is employees' part time gig and he's more interested in keeping his REAL job). Idiot just keeps yakking away - MM getting disgusted with him. P sort of redeem themselves with the amount - say they tried to get D to tell them how much the photobooth alone would have cost, but he didn't want to tell them and offered them $100, so they just asked for a full refund plus the $100. Like I said, MM got disgusted with D and his hearsay/unsupported declarations. He keeps yakking about how the camera was working - it was just the printer and link to social media that was on the fritz - and says that was fixed during the party. P say it never worked. MM rightfully points out that whole purpose of the photobooth was so guests could get instant gratification of pictures at the party (apparently party was a really big deal with some guests traveling from out of state to attend) MM set the cost of booth at $700 and ordered D to refund that amount. Hallterview has another loser whining about the meany judge who wouldn't listen.

Edited November 21, 2018 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

The laundromat case was bizarre, and confusing, and I didn't care who ripped off who after the first couple of minutes.  

The second case with the prisoner uncle was a hoot, very confusing but funny anyway.   I'm surprised he tried to snow Judge Marilyn on criminal procedures, when she used to be a criminal attorney.      I'm glad he got his money back, but I'm shocked he could fit the court show into his busy schedule of incarcerations.  

I loathed the DJ/photo booth guy on sight, so I'm glad he got nailed by the judge.   I have the feeling the Sweet 16 party was the equivalent to the Quinceanera, where it's the biggest shindig the family every throws for the daughter, but a lot of it is outdoing the other people who throw the party for their daughters in their social circle.    

Edited November 21, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

dirty laundry:

I liked this one, as I usually do with cases not involving animal/child abuse, women beating the crap out of each other over loser men, etc. Plaintiff was so unbelievably shifty, slimy and scammy I wondered if he may be related to Levin. He's stiffed everyone - landlord, utility companies and CC companies and is the master of understatement. He only stopped paying rent when his mean landlord raised the rent too high. That must have been quite some time ago, since apparently he's about 50K behind on his rent. Def was perfectly sensible, that he was willing to pay some of the money owed in rent and utilities since even with all that, taking over plaintiff's cleaning business was much cheaper than starting at a new location from scratch. All that is not enough for plaintiff, who thinks def. should also pay all the interest on the 25K he had to take on HIS line of credit to partially pay all the rent owed. He's probably living on someone's couch by now.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Family fight over settlement check: 

Uncle gets arrested, bails himself out with his settlement from something or other, gets arrested again for no reason at all, and spends 4 years in prison for "possession of stolen property? Hmmm, sounds unlikely - some murderers get less time these days -  but anyway of course he has no bank account so puts his settlement into his niece's account. I hope she didn't use any of the money to buy that truly janky, flowing burgundy wig. Niece decides to keep what's left after uncle's attorney fees and gave some to her brother, her mother, etc, because uncle knows she's a Sainted Single Mother and should be revered by all for her bad choices. Uncle, who is a broke ex-convict without a pot to pee in, was feeling generous and gave all the remaining funds to her as a gift. Ah, such heartwarming family tales.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

sweet 16 party fail: 

The only interesting part was weirdo def, another person who relates step by step exactly what happened, when he wasn't even there, knows absolutely nothing but relies on hearsay. Usually it's parents who do this when they want to prove their sweet snowflakes did nothing wrong. The person who was actually at the party didn't want to appear here today. Photo booths need manning! Def. seemed to think that if he had more time to relay yet more hearsay, he'd have won the case. Funny weirdo.

[DoctorK]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I loathed the DJ/photo booth guy on sight, so I'm glad he got nailed by the judge. 

I did too for the completely superficial reason of his atrocious hair style. My hair is really thinning on the top, but I have more sense than to gel what is left and comb the few remaining lonely strands down over my forehead.

Edited November 22, 2018 by DoctorK
added snark

[AngelaHunter]

12 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I did too for the completely superficial reason of his atrocious hair style

He dearly wanted the "Douchebag Dumber and Dumber 'Do" which is wildly popular with many litigants, but doesn't seem to realize in order to achieve that dream hair is needed.

 

 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

The rerun of the homeless woman giving her dog to a man to watch overnight was on again.    I think the only reason the plaintiff received an award was that Judge M felt sorry for her.   However, when the woman admitted the dog cost $1200 originally, and she bought another for $1400 while couch surfing, I was over feeling sorry for her.    If the defendant rehomed the dog, I'm glad, because the plaintiff is a lot of sandwiches short of a picnic.    The plaintiff couldn't even say why she gave the man the dog, and even prove she had the first dog.   I hope if the dog exists, that the dog is in a good home.  My guess is the woman just wants the money, and I bet she's getting cute little dogs from people who can't keep them any longer, and reselling them.   

Tow Case-Man parked in handicapped space at convenience store, car got towed.    Plaintiff says he thinks he should get a discount if they drop the car in the store parking lot, and he says he heard that somewhere.   I bet he saw it on Parking Wars.    I loved Judge Marilyn telling him what a POS he was for parking in the handicapped spot, and it didn't get through to him at all.    Too bad the police weren't available, because parking in a handicapped spot illegally here is a hefty ticket, followed by a tow.    The man didn't even want to go to the lot to pick his car up for $125, but wanted it delivered to him, so the tow company gets two two fees, because the plaintiff is a total jerk.    I hope everyone who knows that douche saw this, and anyone he applies for a job with saw it also.    

On a personal note, a few years ago I went to an event with my (now former) boss, and after I found out she had borrowed an expired handicapped hang tag from her idiot friend, smudged the expiration date enough so you couldn't read it was outdated, and parked right in front of the event, she was dead to me.   I really hoped that someone would realize the tag was expired, and would tow her car, but unfortunately it didn't happen.  

In the apartment security deposit case, how does someone on Section 8 housing pay for an extended overseas vacation?      And I don't know what the place looked like before move in, but it's totally trashed, and the crack in the bedroom wall is huge.    The paint the tenants are accused of doing is horrible.    It looks like they skipped prep, and just painted right over anything on the wall.    I hope the woman's current landlord saw this, does an inspection, and boots them out, but this time documents everything properly.     

Edited November 22, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[zillabreeze]

Umm. Case #2 today.  "The apartment was Section 8. ...we was on vacation OVERSEAS". All in the same breath. 

Gawd I am so stupid!  I pay my mortgage all by myself and there's no money left over for "vacation overseas".  So guess what?  I pay the mortgage and keep my fatass stateside.

Head slam.  I'm doing it wrong.

And my rescue Greyhounds are a whopping $250.00. (not $1200.00) so that they have a roof, shots & LEASHES.

There's a life class or money management class somewhere that I need to attend.  Apparently, I'm all backwards.

Edited November 22, 2018 by zillabreeze

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, zillabreeze said:

Case #2 today.  "The apartment was Section 8. ...we was on vacation OVERSEAS". All in the same breath. 

Did you miss the part where she says she gives away furniture all the time, to charity? I guess she likes all new every times she moves into a new place for which she doesn't pay. I wish this had been on JJ, who would have questioned someone taking overseas vacations and tossing out furnture "all the time" while Byrd supports her. Those two people - plaintiff and her "fiance" (they're always "affianced" but never get married) appeared to be young and able-bodied. Why can't they pay their own rent, like a million others have to do? Why does Byrd have to pay it? And this person talks about her Sec.8 like it's some unalienable right, or something to be proud of instead of the forced charity it is.

1 hour ago, zillabreeze said:

There's a life class or money management class somewhere that I need to attend. 

Me too! I paid rent every month until I became a homeowner and then paid a mortgage every month. I have a sofa and bedroom set that is 24 years old, but unlike Ms. Sec8 and her fiance, I couldn't afford to throw it all out and buy new every time we moved. I'm embarassed I never learned how to work the system. On top of it all, she slaps and smears some kind of shitty paint in garish colours all over the walls and leaves a big mess for the landlord. He's yet another landlord who never, ever bothered to find out tenant/landlord laws until it's too late and it never occurs to him he might need evidence in court. Duh. Oh, my blood pressure!

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Tow Case-Man parked in handicapped space at convenience store, car got towed. 

I'm positive we've seen that tow guy before and he won then too. Anyway, plaintiff is a douchebag hipster type, who absolutely had to have his douchebag drink, Sweet Arizona Citrus White Tea Infusion, or whatever douchebag beverage he had to have right then so, well, he just parks in a handicapped spot. He was only gone 3 seconds, so the actual handicapped can just wait until he gets what he wants. He completed his utter douchebaggery with his sleazy, oily hairdo, that looked like someone shaved his head, skinned a rodent and slapped the pelt on his douchebag head. JM reamed him out quite nicely, and the icing on the cake is that he got zippo. I had to FF his long, drawn-out whining in the hall, but he says JM is completely wrong. Do these douchebags think that just because they say, "I was wrong. My bad!" (and I know that's a rarity these days) they'll get a pat on the head and be absolved of the entitled stupidity in which they engage?

Restaurant owner suing his former bartender for a 200$ loan - boring, except for plaintiff informing JM that he has the paycheck he wrote def. and he has the work schedule too. She wants to see them. Oh, they're at home. Is that a problem? Double "Duh!"

Aside from that, Happy Thanksgiving to all US peeps here!

[CrazyInAlabama]

I did miss the remark about giving away furniture to charity every time she moves, good catch.   Now I hate her even more.  

[babs j.]

If you get new furniture every time you move you don't need to hire movers - think of the savings.

[zillabreeze]

18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

He completed his utter douchebaggery with his sleazy, oily hairdo, that looked like someone shaved his head, skinned a rodent and slapped the pelt on his douchebag head

Dammit AH!  Laughing so hard with a hangover is PAINFUL!

[SRTouch]

20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I did miss the remark about giving away furniture to charity every time she moves, good catch.   Now I hate her even more.  

Missed watching somehow... Wonder if these are rent-to-own (by the time you've finished paying you could have bought actual quality stuff for less money) or particle board crap that is falling apart 2 days after delivery (cuz you know they paid extra for delivery and setup). Ah, well, says I, as I sit here on my 10yo recliner couch (that was paid in full 10 years ago) watching my teeny tiny 5yo 55" (paid for) TeeVee, I'm sure Byrd can afford to pay for these multigenerational deadbeats

Edited November 23, 2018 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

I know it's outright fraud, but the rent-to-own places do no background check, or credit check, will finance anyone, and are surprised when people give them phony information.    They put money down, get a household of furniture and appliances delivered, and then move the next day, and are never heard from again.    From an article in the local paper, people know when someone has moved out, they get into the house, or more likely get their friends to leave the locks open, get a bunch of stuff delivered, and then immediately load it into their own truck, and disappear.   

I know the rent-to-own places don't check the phone numbers, because where I used to live I had a brand new number (tons of new houses, so they had to create thousands of new numbers), and within a year I started getting collection agency calls for some tramp who used my number at several of these places.     They would call, leave a message, and when I called back and told them it wasn't her number, and I never heard of her, they would stop calling for a while, and then start up again.      They never gave up on prying her information out of me, so I bought a call blocker and that solved the problem.    I'm a retired reference librarian, so I managed to find the location on the thief very quickly, so it was just laziness on their part.    

Edited November 24, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

1 minute ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I know it's outright fraud, but the rent-to-own places do no background check, or credit check, will finance anyone, and are surprised when people give them phony information.    They put money down, get a household of furniture and appliances delivered, and then move the next day, and are never heard from again.    From an article in the local paper, people know when someone has moved out, they get into the house, get a bunch of stuff delivered, and then immediately load it into their own truck, and disappear.     

Doesn't surprise me.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Wonder if these are rent-to-own (by the time you've finished paying you could have bought actual quality stuff for less money

That could have been the case here. We've seen litigants who have done just that, with a contract agreeing to pay what ends up being three times the value of the furniture or 65" TeeVees, then doing a moonlight flip (as it was called where I grew up) and either taking all the shit with them, or selling it. 'cause there's no way someone sucking up money on Sec8 could afford to keep replacing furniture when they actually have to pay for it, right? Easy to see how she and her Betrothed could afford pricey vacations.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

From an article in the local paper, people know when someone has moved out, they get into the house, get a bunch of stuff delivered, and then immediately load it into their own truck, and disappear.     

I guess my mind just doesn't work this way - figuring out every scam and fraud on the books.

[DoctorK]

On 11/23/2018 at 1:48 PM, SRTouch said:

Wonder if these are rent-to-own (by the time you've finished paying you could have bought actual quality stuff for less money) or particle board crap that is falling apart 2 days after delivery

Well, many years ago I needed to get a desk at the lowest cost possible. I bought one from a rent to own but paid cash up front. Forty some years later I still have it, it has dovetail joinery on all of the drawers and except for the holes I drilled into it for my reloading press, it is still in good shape. The product was OK, the rent to own scam is terrible.

[AngelaHunter]

21 hours ago, DoctorK said:

The product was OK, the rent to own scam is terrible.

I think the rent to own people probably know their (scammer) clients are going to default on the contract, so try and get as much money as possible before that happens. Everyone, especially those who have no credit, want everything right now, and they can get it at these businesses. Remember in the olden days we had something called "lay away" because we didn't expect to take something home until we paid for it? I used that and bought second-hand furniture too, many years ago. Lay away would be impossible now, since no one sees any reason to wait until they have the funds for whatever gadgets/luxuries/toys they have to have this very minute. You can't afford a whole "suit" of furniture? Buy a sofa and wait til you can get the other pieces. Haha! Yeah, I know that sounds ridiculous.

[aemom]

On 11/22/2018 at 5:22 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Did you miss the part where she says she gives away furniture all the time, to charity? I guess she likes all new every times she moves into a new place for which she doesn't pay.

What was also interesting is that when the landlord told her she couldn't leave it on the porch until it was picked up, she then got her fiancé's brother to help pick it up and haul it to the junkyard.  Why not bring it to a charity?  I question whether it was worth bringing anywhere but a junkyard.

 

On 11/22/2018 at 5:22 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I'm positive we've seen that tow guy before and he won then too.

I thought so too.  I even thought it was a repeat until I realized that I would have recognized the douche hipster and his bullshit tea story had I already seen it.

 

On 11/22/2018 at 5:22 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Anyway, plaintiff is a douchebag hipster type, who absolutely had to have his douchebag drink, Sweet Arizona Citrus White Tea Infusion, or whatever douchebag beverage he had to have right then so, well, he just parks in a handicapped spot. He was only gone 3 seconds, so the actual handicapped can just wait until he gets what he wants. He completed his utter douchebaggery with his sleazy, oily hairdo, that looked like someone shaved his head, skinned a rodent and slapped the pelt on his douchebag head. JM reamed him out quite nicely, and the icing on the cake is that he got zippo. I had to FF his long, drawn-out whining in the hall, but he says JM is completely wrong. Do these douchebags think that just because they say, "I was wrong. My bad!" (and I know that's a rarity these days) they'll get a pat on the head and be absolved of the entitled stupidity in which they engage?

I knew that MM was going to take a piece out of him and I knew the wrath that you would all rain on him would not disappoint me.   A+ description.

 

The restaurant guy seemed kind of confused and very cheap and I'm glad that the defendant got some money back.

 

On 11/22/2018 at 5:22 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Aside from that, Happy Thanksgiving to all US peeps here!

From me too - sorry I'm late. :-)

[CrazyInAlabama]

Something was really strange about the Section 8 woman and her furniture.    I wonder if she buys used furniture, or hits up some charity for free furniture?     

[aemom]

11 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Something was really strange about the Section 8 woman and her furniture.    I wonder if she buys used furniture, or hits up some charity for free furniture?     

There's a lot really strange about this.  I just cannot wrap my head around the fact that you can be on Section 8 and on vacation - OVERSEAS! - at the same time.

[CrazyInAlabama]

It a apparently not a short vacation either.    

[SRTouch]

4 hours ago, AEMom said:

There's a lot really strange about this.  I just cannot wrap my head around the fact that you can be on Section 8 and on vacation - OVERSEAS! - at the same time.

For some reason I find myself thinking of the lyrics of "Welfare Cadillac"  https://www.lyricsfreak.com/g/guy+drake/welfare+cadillac_20847412.html - but with a new 60" smart tv and a 18yo hooptie instead of a brand new Cadillac 

[aemom]

3 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

For some reason I find myself thinking of the lyrics of "Welfare Cadillac"  https://www.lyricsfreak.com/g/guy+drake/welfare+cadillac_20847412.html - but with a new 60" smart tv and a 18yo hooptie instead of a brand new Cadillac 

I'd never heard of the song, so I looked it up out of curiosity.  A very accurate observation!

[seacliffsal]

Section 8 mom who went on an overseas vacation with her fiance just made me so sad.  I haven't been on a vacation for YEARS because I have to pay my bills, mortgage, etc.  It's one thing to subsidize people who sincerely need help, but to take overseas vacations and throw out furniture just makes my head spin.  I really wish the former landlord had followed Florida law and brought receipts to court as then JM would have found in his favor.  The fact that the plaintiff left horrible paint on the walls and still received back $!500 just infuriated me.  JM should have taken the $1500 award and sent it directly to Byrd in payment of every plaintiff and defendant on these shows who are living off of his dime...

[AngelaHunter]

On 11/28/2018 at 1:24 PM, SRTouch said:

For some reason I find myself thinking of the lyrics of "Welfare Cadillac"

That would be a lot funnier were it not a good description of so many we see here. Sec8, welfare and other wrangled handouts as a career choice for the modern young couple. Interesting.

22 minutes ago, seacliffsal said:

  JM should have taken the $1500 award and sent it directly to Byrd

I agree. His burden has become backbreaking.

To lighten the moment, I did enjoy the repeat of the dense, cement-headed idiot who accused the diabolical mechanics of a motorcyle shop of deliberately "dabbing" grease on his tires to ensure he'd have an accident which, if he survived, would reap them yet more money on the repairs. Def was understandably confused at this mind-blowing stupidity. There was no "debreeze" on theroad! They must have greased his tires! His wifey stands solidly by her man. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

I just watched the instant classic rerun from this season, about the two women who swap cars, judge decides they both keep the heaps they traded for, and where the defendant wore a skimpy sundress, with a regular bra hanging out of it.    My favorite is when poor Doug does the hallterview, and the defendant walks away, and you can see the back of the bra, and it's way above the back of the dress.     Plus, in spite of wearing what looks like an industrial strength bra, the defendant still has a huge amount of saggy boobage on display.  

Edited November 30, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[zillabreeze]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plus, in spite of wearing what looks like an industrial strength bra, the defendant still has a huge amount of saggy boobage on display.  

Just caught this one, ugh.  That was NASTY! She was also sporting the required giant plastic eyelashes.

So later in the episode in a landlord dispute, JM pronounces the word "sword" several times with a very pronounced "W". Is that a regional thing or have I missed a memo?

[AZChristian]

33 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

So later in the episode in a landlord dispute, JM pronounces the word "sword" several times with a very pronounced "W". Is that a regional thing or have I missed a memo?

She'll learn to pronounce "sword" correctly right after she leaves the extra syllable out of "chimney."  It is NOT "chiminey," Your Honor.

[AngelaHunter]

1 minute ago, AZChristian said:

She'll learn to pronounce "sword" correctly right after she leaves the extra syllable out of "chimney." 

I was very suprised at the sWord. And yeah, the "chiminey" thing is annoying, and always makes me think of "Mary Poppins". At least she doesn't say "realAtor" or  "cock-er-roaches" which is amazing since she hears that all the time from litigants. We even heard an actual realtor say "realAtor".

[aemom]

I suspect that a lot of pronunciation must be regional.  I heard a whole discussion on the radio about how here in Quebec we pronounce bagel: "bay-gel," but apparently in the Atlantic provinces, it is pronounced "bah-gel."

I have also spent far too many years hearing my husband's family say "cuttle-ry" instead of "cutlery" and "brah" instead of "braw" (as in brassiere.)

Edited December 1, 2018 by AEMom
Clarification

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, AEMom said:

I heard a whole discussion on the radio about how here in Quebec we pronounce it "bay-gel,"

What is "bay-gel" or "bah-gel"? I'm in Qc too but I don't know what that word is supposed to be?

[AZChristian]

18 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

What is "bay-gel" or "bah-gel"? I'm in Qc too but I don't know what that word is supposed to be?

Bagel . . . apparently, there is discussion in Canada as to whether it's pronounced "bagel" or "baggle."

[aemom]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

What is "bay-gel" or "bah-gel"? I'm in Qc too but I don't know what that word is supposed to be?

Lol. @AZChristian is correct. It would have helped if I had included the word bagel in my post. Edited to fix that.

Edited December 1, 2018 by AEMom
Typo

[Taeolas]

On 11/28/2018 at 10:02 AM, AEMom said:

There's a lot really strange about this.  I just cannot wrap my head around the fact that you can be on Section 8 and on vacation - OVERSEAS! - at the same time.

 

For what it is worth, I don't really hold her overseas vacation against her. It could have been a trip arranged by family or friends to a cheap location in Europe or Africa or similar, taken on a cheap cattlecar flight across the Atlantic. Sure her priorities are more than a bit twisted, but it may not have been as expensive for her as "overseas vacation" might seem. Basically, the "overseas vacation" is extra noise in the case, meant to set a particular view of her. 

 

now other aspects of her story certainly make her appear more scammy, and she certainly needs some hard lessons on budgeting.  But without more information that isn't really relevant to her case; the vacation comment was irrelevant noise IMO. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

They had the rerun of the two men from the condo association near Miami.     The one man who was sitting down, except when he showed the alleged assault on poor Douglas, claims the other former condo board member pushed him down, ruined his already bad knee.      I think Judge M was totally out of line when she said both parties should stop bothering each other, and I doubt the defendant did anything wrong, and the plaintiff and his sister were total liars.    The plaintiff's sister was allowed to ramble on endlessly, about a situation she knew nothing about, wasn't present for, and should have been sitting in the hallway, not whining about her faker brother.     Does plaintiff really think that a door lock on storage units will slow down a fire department response at all?   Not happening, and consulting a local fire marshal about locking rooms they've never seen is irrelevant.    I'm sure that many people in that condo regret ever setting eyes on the plaintiff, and there's a good reason he's not on the governing board any longer.   

[AngelaHunter]

I got all cases I had never seen, though I skipped the last one because I have no interest in hearing about awful things happening to dogs in the custody of assholes.

In the first case, the stupidity was so strong it had JM stunned, disgusted and wanting to know why plaintiff doesn't seem to have connected brain cells. Plaintiff lets her sister and her sister's useless, freeloading boyfriend live with her. These are all people of middle age, btw. Boyfriend works,  but doesn't pay any rent of course. Plaintiff is such a doormat she doesn't ask him to. He has no money, he says, and no credit because he never pays his bills, so plaintiff thinks it's a fine idea to rent a car for him in her name because he really needs one. She was trying to "be nice" and we know how well that always works out.  He'll pay her back for it! I guess it came as quite a shock to her when he didn't pay. He owes her for the car and the best part is that he's still living there, freeloading. For a parasitic, fugly loser, he has quite the little attitude, even with JM. I can see why plaintiff's sister is so enamoured with him.

Then we had a vile little Penguin-like character, suing his former landlord for for 4K all kinds of stuff. He wants rent back - rent he never paid! When JM asks him why, he doesn't reply, just gives her a "I'm trying to scam and get a boe-nanaza for anything I can get" smirky look. Maybe he thought his sexy grin would sway JM. Seems he helped def in some case by filming drug dealers outside the slum building, so feels he's owed. He has to be careful, since he had an 11-daughter living with him (I'd like to see the woman who wanted to breed with him) and has to keep her safe, but seems he thinks it's okay to have her living in a slum, infested with roaches and mice. He shows JM a pic to prove the mouse problem. These are special mice, who climb and balance on the edge of the baseboard only in one place to poop there and nowhere else. Oh, def says that picture was in back of plaintiff's stove with all kinds of grease and debris left by him. Oops. The little creep gets nothing and def gets 800$ dollars for the rent owed when he had never planned to sue for it at all.

[patty1h]

I actually learned something in case #3 today - if your pet cat attacks and hurts another animal, you're not liable.  This is the case of a man who was walking his dog past a store, which had a cat that hung out there.  The store owner acknowledged that it's his cat, which was sitting outside and attacked the dog as it was going past.  I was curious about this one - I never thought about how the the laws see pet cats, and I found out that the nature of cats gives them the right to free reign and to defend themselves.  I'm not saying that like it's a bad thing, just how JM explained it.  I'm just a little surprised that someone's pet can cause bodily harm to another and the owner has no liability.  So, watch out for store cats, all you dog owners.

Edited December 4, 2018 by patty1h
Added info for those who skip animal cases