The People's Court - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

36 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

I reserve my sympathy for those who are truly deserving.

Me too, and that doesn't include criminals. I particularly hate those who whine about prison conditions. If you think you might not like jail, don't break the law. Simple. Something I read years ago has always stayed with me: "The poor may be deprived, but not necessarily deserving."

I was really dumfounded when JM was all "Oh, poor you!" to this person who cares nothing for the rights of others and does whatever the hell he pleases and came down on the person who is earning an honest living. Judge M, what are you doing - catering to the PC and SJW faction? Do you not care for the victims of this lowlife? This case really should have been on JJ, where he would have garnered zero sympathy.

Calvin's partial rap sheet, including his aliases:(why would someone who "didn't do nothing wrong" need those?) He's a busy guy!

https://www.rapsheets.org/florida/doc-prisoner/EDGERTON_CALVIN/084670

[CrazyInAlabama]

What an impressive "resume" Calvin has.  19 aliases is mind boggling in itself.

This morning's rerun of the little old lady renting an apartment to one man, and actually had three people minimum living there was hysterical.    If you claim to be a grown adult, with a kid of your own, and want me to believe it, then don't bring your mommy to court to do most of the talking for you.     Judge M didn't even consider or check to see if Rochester lets you rent an apartment while working on a certificate of occupancy, truly a gift to the renter.  

Edited February 7, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

No, I haven't quite given up on recapping these new and exciting cases - although I admit I have been less than riveted to my seat the past couple days. Today I was prepared, coffee made, sat down, tuned in.... only to find Calvin on my sceen... Calvin, the poor, picked on career criminal who, when asked, doesn't know how many times he's been arrested, but assures MM none of his felonies were for bad stuff....

Anyway, as sometimes happens with my TPC provider, they have the schedule messed up and are showing the same episode 2 days in a row.... I really hope whoever is sleeping at the station wakes up before Hot Bench, because HB has been showing the better cases so far this week

Edited February 6, 2019 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

My provider was showing the rerun at 8 a.m., and the new one (or a rerun) at 10 a.m.    Then, they switched and show the new one at 8 a.m., so I'm putting my DVR to use.    

Today's new one of the two roommates who gave each other anxiety attacks, everyone got stabbed, and they all looked like hoarders in training were idiots.     The plaintiff got $500, I think just to get rid of both of them.     Both litigants were fools, and looked like someone should look for bodies in their storage closets.

The second case with the toothless, whack jobs on both sides made me hear banjo music.      They all look like the producers recruited them off of skid row.   I really wonder why the woman on the defense side in the plaid top was there for, because she didn't say a work, or seem to have any reason to be there.    I love how the defendant was selling a truck that was underwater, had a bank lien, so she wasn't the owner at all, then when it's paid off it disappeared.     Plaintiff claims the defendant wanted to burn the truck and report it stolen and destroyed, to get insurance money.   Plaintiff was fine with the burning and insurance fraud on the truck too.     I think under the clean hands doctrine, no one should get anything, because they're all criminals.  

 $1400 for the plaintiff.   

Edited February 6, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[patty1h]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Today's new one of the two roommates who gave each other anxiety attacks, everyone got stabbed, and they all looked like hoarders in training were idiots.     The plaintiff got $500, I think just to get rid of both of them.     Both litigants were fools, and looked like someone should look for bodies in their storage closets.

These guys were from Brooklyn, where hipsters are moving from Manhattan in droves.  Being a lifelong NYCer, I've seen many hipsters but this plaintiff has turned the "I'm a cool, artsy dude" look jacked up to 11.  He had the funky hat, the weird hairstyle, the lock in his earlobe, some scruffy facial hair, and found a retro shirt out of Goodwill, worn with a bolo tie.  He completed his look with an extra-thick keychain, straight leg pants, and a wacky denim jacket.  Did he say what he does for a living?  Whatever he does, hopefully he gets some appreciation/validation from someone for all the effort he puts into his look.

EDIT:  The 2nd case was a frightening look into what happens when chromosomes go wrong and/or drugs like meth come into the community.

Edited February 6, 2019 by patty1h

[CrazyInAlabama]

Whatever he does, I'm sure it's not fashion consultant.  

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, SRTouch said:

. only to find Calvin on my sceen... Calvin, the poor, picked on career criminal who

Had company for dinner so no time to watch today's eps, but I just must mention that Calvin also whined that mean, nasty employers are hesitant to hire someone who has 35 felonies under his belt. How dare they? It's so unfair, and JM seems to sympathize with that point, yet I wonder if SHE would hire him in any capacity? Yes, we know there are a zillion honest, upstanding people who have never committed a crime and cannot find work, but Calvin should get jobs because he's so trustworthy and because if you don't hire an habitual thief/criminal it means you're biased in some way, which in itself has now reached criminal status.

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, patty1h said:

These guys were from Brooklyn, where hipsters are moving from Manhattan in droves. 

Two annoying drips, both of whom seem to spend way too much time and effort whining and bitching and getting elaborate douchebag hairdos. Anxiety attacks, antique dressers ("some guy told me it was worth 600$") police reports, hospital bills and bills for moving trucks - JM wants receipts, for anything. "Oh WE don't have that on us! Come on! We/I work 24/7/were in the hospital/couldn't be bothered/had a huge/small anxiety attack". Def lives like a.., well I don't want to say "pig" because no animal would voluntarily live in such disgusting squalor and  - eight bedrooms? For a single guy? Rent-controlled? What's this scam all about? Plaintiff? You got a frickin' padlock in your EAR, you ridiculous, screeching, bearded fool/cuck. JM couldn't take anymore of them. Too bad "Felipe" couldn't be here. Sounds like he's the only one with a brain.

[DoctorK]

15 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I don't want to say "pig" because no animal would voluntarily live in such disgusting squalor

As a city kid I was lucky enough to spend a summer when I was bout 8 years old on svereal family farms in Wisconsin. I learned that if not confined to a sty, pigs were no nastier than cows (except for the smell which is so much like humans it is a bit rough). Also, cows are really stupid and when they step on your foot it is really hard to get their attention to get them to get off your foot. Finally, draft horses (some elderly relatives still used them instead of tractors) were elderly, smart and extremely gentle. As a little kid they would let us do almost anything, watched where they put their hoofs down; straddling one of these huge beasts was like straddling a dining room table. One of the best experiences of my life as a young city kid.

[AngelaHunter]

57 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

I learned that if not confined to a sty, pigs were no nastier than cows

They are not. I think that reputation comes from them rolling in mud, but they do that because they have no sweatglands and no fur coat so it keeps them from getting sunburned and cools them down. Nothing to do with being dirty, unlike so many vile human beings we see here and on other shows.

[Brattinella]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

As a city kid I was lucky enough to spend a summer when I was bout 8 years old on svereal family farms in Wisconsin. I learned that if not confined to a sty, pigs were no nastier than cows (except for the smell which is so much like humans it is a bit rough). Also, cows are really stupid and when they step on your foot it is really hard to get their attention to get them to get off your foot. Finally, draft horses (some elderly relatives still used them instead of tractors) were elderly, smart and extremely gentle. As a little kid they would let us do almost anything, watched where they put their hoofs down; straddling one of these huge beasts was like straddling a dining room table. One of the best experiences of my life as a young city kid.

Thank you!  You reminded me of my own childhood.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I really enjoyed the rerun of the Trader Joe's Watermelon Cart crash, with that despicable woman that didn't care about any damage she did, but cared about her watermelon, and her purse. 

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I really enjoyed the rerun of the Trader Joe's Watermelon Cart crash, with that despicable woman that didn't care about any damage she did, but cared about her watermelon, and her purse. 

Destined to be a classic 

[SRTouch]

Lousy morning, looking to escape thinking of trip to pet crematorium this morning - lost my Frankie suddenly yesterday - he was running across living room 1 minute, collapsed and was gone before I got up and went to check on him 😢😢😢

Anyway, 1st case a dud, 2nd case about a cat breeder selling a sick kitten, last case about bad lug nuts used at tire shop

1. tenant wants deposit back: tenant claims she doesn't know why D gave her the boot, it's been a year and she's still not sure - claims it was illegal eviction, wants her deposit ($1525) landlord (D) intro says P was asked to leave because she missed a month's rent, says she painted inside walls God-awful pink, left behind furniture and what not preview clip makes you wonder why D is here without property manager when he isn't even sure what month he claims rent wasn't paid - fool totally unprepared while P busy pulling stacks of something from her shoulder bag suitcase testimony hmmm right out the gate we learn somebody terminated the 1 year lease early, as P left after 6 months, so MM will have to decide who breached the lease - appears the month they had a problem was October - she says she was current on rent, when for some unexplained reason she was asked for October rent on September 15th - over to Defendant... ah, this is where preview had him looking like an unprepared dufus... MM, what month didn't she pay rent? - D (for dufus), I think October - MM, you think? Didn't you check with your property manager before coming on TPC? Dufus really looks like a fool, he assumes property manager followed law with proper notices etc, but really has nothing as far as evidence - not even sure when P failed to pay rent (or really IF she was ever delinquent) - I mean dufus is acting like all this happened in distant past, despite saying it was a year ago...  Ah, you know MM just used his answer to bring out fact she knew P had taken out a restraining order against property manager, and now we're going back to P to find out why the restraining order... ah, here I was thinking P was the sensible one (well, except for the hot pink walls) but as we go to commercial we hear she has all this phone text evidence printed out, but she replaces her phone every 3-4 months (says she keeps dropping them in the toilet or breaking them) so, even though she brought her old broken phones in, does the judge really want to see her evidence in the phone?... after commercial we learn she is almost as "evidence challenged" as dufus. She admits she was late one month, oh, maybe July or maybe September.... (but just like dufus, it was SO LONG ago she's hazy on exact dates (or, apparently, even what month)... apparently she had kerfuffle with property manager over the late rent (which she claims was 4 days late but has no evidence of even paying) on September 15th and she was out of there by October 1st - now we get the printed versus text in phone exchange... really sounds like MM working the clock trying to drag this out - another exchange with D about why he appeared without property manager, then another exchange with P about why she up and 'ah-moved' if she was truly current on rent... ok, really just spinning our wheels here, with questionable evidence from both sides  (well, no evidence from dufus and iffy from P) - part of the iffy evidence is printed text exchange where AWOL property manager says she talked to dufus and he agreed to return deposit - so MM asks about the damage - P claims she left place in better condition then she received it, and she has video - MM turns to dufus to see if he at least has evidence of damage which would justify his keeping deposit - ok, knew it was coming, MM finally gets fed up with these two and says she's tired of flapping gums show her something - as we head to commercial P is explaining she paid rent in cash, so we can look forward to the toilet paper/crayon receipt when we come back... ok, side note - couple of really cute french bulldogs as part of gallery out with Short Stuff (probably raising IQ average) make it worth watching - though 'mute' button use recommended... ok, more non-evidence for plaintiff, she claims the pink paint was on walls when she moved in, but while she has exit video, she has nothing from before.... ok, nuf fooling around, times up and MM quickly establishes that landlord's property manager promised to returned deposit (which trashes his back rent defense), didn't, and failed to follow the law about written notice of why deposit wasn't returned.... geez, if we had led with that this would have all been over in first few minutes - ok, more mud thrown on Dufus for not following law (any wonder why property manager is AWOL) - dufus even admits walls may have been pink before P moved in - typical plaintiff padding claim nonsense with arbitrary "late fee" for not returning deposit, another dig for no receipt for attorney fees... she gets back deposit
2. uh oh - back yard cat breeder case definitely not what I want to watch today.... skipped not only this one but just decided to old Dr Jeff rerun

off topic, so apologies in advance - Spotty saying goodbye to Frankie 

Edited February 11, 2019 by SRTouch

[Brattinella]

OH dear, @SRTouch I am so sorry for the loss of your beloved Frankie!  I know intimately how much it hurts to lose a dear friend.  And thank you for the lovely picture, it made me cry.  Hugs.

[CrazyInAlabama]

So sorry for the loss of your beloved Frankie.     

[Broderbits]

Condolences on the loss of beautiful Frankie. The picture made me cry too, and hug my cat Vivian extra close.

[AngelaHunter]

SRTouch, very sorry for your loss. This is the pain we suffer as pet owners, but what we give each other makes it worth it. Or does it? I'm not so sure anymore.:( I hope knowing your darling Frankie had a lifetime of love and caring and felt no suffering or fear at the end is some small comfort.

Today's rental case featured two of the most insufferable litigants ever. Plaintiff had no proof of anything. She has to pay all her bills in cash for some mysterious reason (ho!) and the property manager refused to give her any receipts for rent paid. What could she do? Also, her texts are not on her phone, because she's such a clumsy fool she has to buy a new phone every four months. Okay, I've only had a cell phone for less than three years, but I've never taken it in the bathroom and held it over the toilet. Who does that, really, besides little children? I'm trying to picture someone dropping two phones in the john and I can't figure out how that happens. Is she so important she - who apparenly can't even have a bank account -  needs to be in constant contact  even while taking a pee? Anyway, plaintiff wants money for her lawyer bill. When JM requests the bill, plaintiff holds up an email from... someone, which says, "I'd probably charge you 265$" and she calls that proof of payment. JM scoffs at this idiocy and plaintiff rolls her eyes but gets caught doing so and then backpedals.

Def landlord is a moron who admits he, like most landlords seen here,  has zero knowledge of landlord/tenant laws. He doesn't know what happened, can't remember, has no proof of anything and didn't bring the property manager. What a tool. JM couldn't stand either of them and neither could I.

The cat case kind of made my blood boil . Petfinder is a site to find homes for abandoned, lost, homeless animals. It is not a site for puppy/kitten millers and BYBers to line their pockets by peddling animals they've bred. I don't  know if it's still there, but when I was doing rescue and had a site there I saw "Personal ads" with people doing just that and I always reported them and got the ads taken down. Plaintiff tries for sympathy bid with her heart surgery which has nothing to do with the case. She buys a kitten, rather than adopting from a reputable rescue and it's sick, dehydrated, flea-ridden, etc. but she wanted what she wanted. She's so greedy she's trying to make def pay for nail-clipping and her 16-year old cat with renal failure. This is very common in elderly cats and has nothing to do with fleas or colds in cats. I lost my 17 year old cat to renal failure and that's life and is no one's fault. Def has to pay for the bills pertaining to the treatment of the kitten, period.

The lug nut case was kind of boring and as usual the business-owning def comes, when he knows nothing about what was done to plaintiff's car and doesn't bring the mechanic who actually worked on it. Gee, how did he think that would end up? I know little about cars but even I could see from the pics that the job wasn't done right.

[DoctorK]

37 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

even I could see from the pics that the job wasn't done right.

At first I was ready to blow off the plaintiff's case as hokum. It didn't help that he did not explain clearly the differences among "lugs" (which are fixed threaded studs), "lug nuts" (which are nuts that screw on the fixed lugs), and "lug bolts" (for cars that have threaded holes instead of lugs) which are bolts the thread directly into the wheel mount. Maybe the Army uses a different nomenclature, quite possible.  However, his evidence was some of the best I have ever seen on any of these shows. The pictures made it clear that his custom wheels needed special lug nuts (most are standardized, but custom wheels can need special ones). His pictures clearly (well photographed!) showed the difference in the fit of the correct lug nuts and the incorrect ones, and the damage the incorrect ones did. I don't know how two of the wheels (as I heard it) were done incorrectly but he was correct that whoever installed them should have seen the problem. My only concern was that I didn't see it clearly shown that the wrong lug nuts were put on by the defendant's shop, nobody asked the plaintiff to show that no one else did any work on the car that would have affected that. Kudos to the plaintiff for great evidence that was clear, succinct and directly addressed the issue.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Kudos to the plaintiff for great evidence that was clear, succinct and directly addressed the issue.

Yes! Usually we get photos in b/w, hugely blown up to where the image is so blurry or pixelated it's incomprehensible and meaningless, or don't show anything the litigant says it does and they figure JM is so stupid she'll just accept it. These photos were so good that even a layperson could see what plaintiff was talking about. The fact that he works on wheels and knows what's he talking about instead of guessing what was wrong was a bonus.

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

However, his evidence was some of the best I have ever seen on any of these shows.

A litigant able to provide clear and persuasive evidence on a TV court show? A precious and rare event indeed, despite his terminological confusion at times.

[patty1h]

This is about the Emmy Vega/Leon Brown apartment share case... does it make me a bad person that I muttered OMG out loud and shuddered at the sight of Leon's girlfriend?  Yeah, well I don't care in this case.  Leon is no Chadwick Boseman himself, but GF reminded me of a plucked chicken that spent it's early years near the Chernobyl nuclear plant.   Love may be blind but COME ON!!!!!!!  Why did it skeeve me that Leon and GF couldn't stop from holding hands while speaking to the judge? 

What a classy couple -- he wants to help women!  I think Leon was hoping for a young female who would be so desperate that she'd hop into the bed with him and his squeeze.  I think GF would have gone along to get along - she seems to have some icky hero worship thing going on that she just had to drop in that lover boy just got a promotion.    

Edited February 12, 2019 by patty1h

[Mrs Shibbles]

@SRTouch , I am so sorry about your Frankie! 😞

[CrazyInAlabama]

I think the room sharing was exactly as other posters suspected, and I think the Judge thought so too.    I was totally amazed that someone who had the entire family evicted managed to get $1,000 cash from somewhere, and then the entire bunch managed to get someone to rent to them after an eviction.     I bet within six months the whole lot will be on TPC  for their security deposit, and entire rent they paid before they were evicted again, and we will all be here to see that.   

[cmpbl]

On 2/11/2019 at 1:03 PM, SRTouch said:

Lousy morning, looking to escape thinking of trip to pet crematorium this morning - lost my Frankie suddenly yesterday - he was running across living room 1 minute, collapsed and was gone before I got up and went to check on him 😢😢😢

Anyway, 1st case a dud, 2nd case about a cat breeder selling a sick kitten, last case about bad lug nuts used at tire shop

1. tenant wants deposit back: tenant claims she doesn't know why D gave her the boot, it's been a year and she's still not sure - claims it was illegal eviction, wants her deposit ($1525) landlord (D) intro says P was asked to leave because she missed a month's rent, says she painted inside walls God-awful pink, left behind furniture and what not preview clip makes you wonder why D is here without property manager when he isn't even sure what month he claims rent wasn't paid - fool totally unprepared while P busy pulling stacks of something from her shoulder bag suitcase testimony hmmm right out the gate we learn somebody terminated the 1 year lease early, as P left after 6 months, so MM will have to decide who breached the lease - appears the month they had a problem was October - she says she was current on rent, when for some unexplained reason she was asked for October rent on September 15th - over to Defendant... ah, this is where preview had him looking like an unprepared dufus... MM, what month didn't she pay rent? - D (for dufus), I think October - MM, you think? Didn't you check with your property manager before coming on TPC? Dufus really looks like a fool, he assumes property manager followed law with proper notices etc, but really has nothing as far as evidence - not even sure when P failed to pay rent (or really IF she was ever delinquent) - I mean dufus is acting like all this happened in distant past, despite saying it was a year ago...  Ah, you know MM just used his answer to bring out fact she knew P had taken out a restraining order against property manager, and now we're going back to P to find out why the restraining order... ah, here I was thinking P was the sensible one (well, except for the hot pink walls) but as we go to commercial we hear she has all this phone text evidence printed out, but she replaces her phone every 3-4 months (says she keeps dropping them in the toilet or breaking them) so, even though she brought her old broken phones in, does the judge really want to see her evidence in the phone?... after commercial we learn she is almost as "evidence challenged" as dufus. She admits she was late one month, oh, maybe July or maybe September.... (but just like dufus, it was SO LONG ago she's hazy on exact dates (or, apparently, even what month)... apparently she had kerfuffle with property manager over the late rent (which she claims was 4 days late but has no evidence of even paying) on September 15th and she was out of there by October 1st - now we get the printed versus text in phone exchange... really sounds like MM working the clock trying to drag this out - another exchange with D about why he appeared without property manager, then another exchange with P about why she up and 'ah-moved' if she was truly current on rent... ok, really just spinning our wheels here, with questionable evidence from both sides  (well, no evidence from dufus and iffy from P) - part of the iffy evidence is printed text exchange where AWOL property manager says she talked to dufus and he agreed to return deposit - so MM asks about the damage - P claims she left place in better condition then she received it, and she has video - MM turns to dufus to see if he at least has evidence of damage which would justify his keeping deposit - ok, knew it was coming, MM finally gets fed up with these two and says she's tired of flapping gums show her something - as we head to commercial P is explaining she paid rent in cash, so we can look forward to the toilet paper/crayon receipt when we come back... ok, side note - couple of really cute french bulldogs as part of gallery out with Short Stuff (probably raising IQ average) make it worth watching - though 'mute' button use recommended... ok, more non-evidence for plaintiff, she claims the pink paint was on walls when she moved in, but while she has exit video, she has nothing from before.... ok, nuf fooling around, times up and MM quickly establishes that landlord's property manager promised to returned deposit (which trashes his back rent defense), didn't, and failed to follow the law about written notice of why deposit wasn't returned.... geez, if we had led with that this would have all been over in first few minutes - ok, more mud thrown on Dufus for not following law (any wonder why property manager is AWOL) - dufus even admits walls may have been pink before P moved in - typical plaintiff padding claim nonsense with arbitrary "late fee" for not returning deposit, another dig for no receipt for attorney fees... she gets back deposit
2. uh oh - back yard cat breeder case definitely not what I want to watch today.... skipped not only this one but just decided to old Dr Jeff rerun

off topic, so apologies in advance - Spotty saying goodbye to Frankie 

I'm so sorry. Saying a prayer for your family 

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, patty1h said:

This is about the Emmy Vega/Leon Brown apartment share case... does it make me a bad person that I muttered OMG out loud and shuddered at the sight of Leon's girlfriend? 

Okay, so I've long been puzzled at people who look for strangers to occupy a bedroom in their home. This? The hand-holding Freak Show defs looked for a stranger to LIVE IN THEIR BEDROOM and sleep with them. WTF?? Oh, but true - the egg-headed Leon does this only because his goal in life is to help young women (when he can't even help himself). I'm sure he had no designs on the young and nubile plaintiff. How altruistic of him. omg... I can say no more.

I really enjoyed the lawyer case. It was a pleasant turnaround and a suprise to hear from a lawyer who actually seemed competent and kept records. I'm sorry but I did not believe plaintiff when he said he asked upfront if his son would be included the bankruptcy since he shared a credit card with dad, and the lawyer - who seems to specialize in bankruptcies - told him, "Gee, I dunno. Let me try to find out and I'll let you know." I would think that calling the lawyer a "crook" in front of millions of people might be slander, but what do I know? Offering JM and Douglas money? Announcing he'd swear in front of a priest - since we know anyone who swears to tell the truth here always does  just that - didn't help his case. The only thing he said that made total sense was, "I'm not so smart. If I were, I wouldn't be here."

Then we had a snoozer - running shoes, of course. There needs to be a Sneaker Exchange, along with stock, commodity and option exchanges. Sneakers plaintiff ordered were fake sneakers which def. got from "my boy" and who cares?

[CrazyInAlabama]

Why do I have the feeling the lawyer told the man that the son was on the hook, and the plaintiff didn't want to hear it, so he ignored it?  I bet the plaintiff ran up bills on that card and others, knowing he would file for bankruptcy, and I hope the bankruptcy judge told him no.  

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Why do I have the feeling the lawyer told the man that the son was on the hook, and the plaintiff didn't want to hear it, so he ignored it?

Very probably. He struck me as the kind of person who once he has come to a conclusion about a situation, sticks to it no matter what facts or logic are interposed. Grasping at all available straws, he even played the "I'm just a dumb layman" card at one point, whereas anyone in business with a minimum level of savvy would have checked, before handing out the money, the information JM was pointing out to him. Another desperate move was him openly offering to give money to the judge and her bailiff.

The defendant is not one of those high-flying celebrity lawyers that advertise on TV court shows, but he showed he was professional and did his work competently, without flashiness, deserving to keep the money.

4 hours ago, patty1h said:

I think Leon was hoping for a young female who would be so desperate that she'd hop into the bed with him and his squeeze. 

Were they supposed to all sleep in the same bed? This adds another layer of weirdness to that case, like a puff pastry of ickiness.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

3 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Were they supposed to all sleep int he same bed?

I believe Leon mentioned a blow-up bed for plaintiff, I guess to sleep at the foot of their bed or next to it. Plaintiff seemed to think this was okay and didn't think she'd mind listening to those freaky weirdos bumping uglies. "Icky" is not the word for this debacle.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Dueling Sharons over the same car, borrowed the plaintiff's car, but was paying for it too, and months before the pay off Sharon (def) claimed to be Sharon (plaintiff) when the accident happened to the car and insurance in Sharon plaintiff's name.   Sharon #2 (def.) proudly exclaims she's very recently sober after 20 years on drugs, and had no drivers license for the same number of years.     Both of the Sharons seems to be absolutely stoned, and have the I.Q. of a lump of Silly Putty.   My apologies to Silly Putty.    

Sharon #2 (def.) claims the man who hit 'her' car did it deliberately, ripped a closed car door off, and then she claimed to be Sharon #1 (plaintiff), who was the registered owner, and only name on the insurance.    Sharon #2 (def.) claims to have paid all of her driving without a license tickets.    Sharon #1 (plaintiff) claims to not have seen her car for over six months, and was dropped by State Farm insurance for a ton of claims on her husband's car, and her car that was at the brother's house.    Sharon #1 (plaintiff) claims the old "I was out of town a lot" defense.    Sharon #2 (def.) is told to stop imitating a bobble head.   The Sharon #2 son is a hereditary fool, and proves it repeatedly.     Sharon #2 was supposedly paying $187 a month for insurance, so it comes out to almost $2200 a year?   Does that seem high?   

Verdict for defendant, but no money.  

Edited February 13, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[jenifaohjenny]

21 hours ago, patty1h said:

This is about the Emmy Vega/Leon Brown apartment share case... does it make me a bad person that I muttered OMG out loud and shuddered at the sight of Leon's girlfriend?  Yeah, well I don't care in this case.  Leon is no Chadwick Boseman himself, but GF reminded me of a plucked chicken that spent it's early years near the Chernobyl nuclear plant.   Love may be blind but COME ON!!!!!!!  Why did it skeeve me that Leon and GF couldn't stop from holding hands while speaking to the judge? 

What a classy couple -- he wants to help women!  I think Leon was hoping for a young female who would be so desperate that she'd hop into the bed with him and his squeeze.  I think GF would have gone along to get along - she seems to have some icky hero worship thing going on that she just had to drop in that lover boy just got a promotion.    

I loved how when they left court the girlfriend was all upset that she did not get to talk and have her time in the spotlight!  

[Bazinga]

Annoyed at Judge Milan's comments during today's second case regarding the restaurant refrigerator sale.  She was incredulous that the owner of the business would send a 20 year old to represent him.  I dislike JM applying her bias that young people are irresponsible.  What would the point of the owner showing up at TPC?  He had no interaction with the plaintiff and would just say, I don't know anything about this and baby driver would have to be the one supplying the defense anyway.  If the owner showed up without baby driver, then the judge would be annoyed by that.  I don't mind the ultimate decision but didn't like the judge's comments that implied that it had to do with the age of the person who appeared in court and interacted with the plaintiffs.  Just because her daughters might be irresponsible means every 20 year old is irresponsible is just wrong.  A twenty old is an adult and should be treated as such.  Same for Judge Judy stating any time a teenager talks they are lying.  Why is ageism considered cute and appropriate?  Change age to a sex, race or religion and see how well it goes over.  I also didn't like her implication he must be the owner or how else would  baby driver be allowed to defend the business at TPC?  Maybe the owner didn't care enough about the case to actually bother to show up.

I am a bankruptcy attorney and I guess I should chime in on yesterday's bankruptcy attorney case. 

I would like to note that JM usually reduces attorney fees that were agreed upon to what is "reasonable." I don't like that she does this in attorney cases yet she doesn't apply reasonableness to other contract situations like a car deal, so don't know why she thinks attorneys should charge less than they agreed to charge and clients should pay less than they agreed to pay.  I am particularly referring to that mother who didn't want to pay the attorney for her son 'who was just protecting himself' that beat and kicked the man on video while he was on the ground and went back for more.  JM reduced the agreed upon fee for some reason that I didn't think was warranted.  Please know I am not being a money hungry attorney as I don't charge high fees, I just think it is wrong that because the Judge is an attorney she feels she knows how much attorneys should charge so that she can reduce fees already agreed upon by the parties in a valid contract.

As an aside, I charge about one-third of what the attorney in this case charges for all chapter 7 cases; my fee is less than most other attorneys though.  The $2,875, IMO, is a bit on the high side but it depends on how complicated the case is in relation to assets and the amount of debt.  I have seen similar and higher fees though.  The bankruptcy court regulates how much bankruptcy attorneys can charge for a case. 

I, personally, would have, and have on a few occasions, returned the client's money without issue if he changed his mind before filing, as I feel the act of filing is when I should get paid but that is just my way of doing things.  This is what Harvey was suggesting outside.  As I really didn't like the plaintiff at all, as he was obnoxious, I am glad he lost and very much agree with the decision. 

Would like to make a few point though related to bankruptcy. 

The filing of the father's bankruptcy would not change the co-debtor son's position.  He is liable as a co-debtor before and would be liable for the debt after the bankruptcy.  As I explained a few weeks ago, both parties to the agreement are jointly and severally liable on the debt to the credit card company.  The father's filing bankruptcy would relieve the father of his liability and the creditor would now expect payment from just the son, the co-debtor.  The bankruptcy did not make the son liable; the agreement they entered into with the credit card company made the son liable.  The father, even after he filed bankruptcy, could have made the payments for the son if he wanted.  Did the plaintiff expect the son's debt, and that is what it is, the son's debt as much as it is his debt, to be wiped out by his filing bankruptcy? 

The question about the effect on the son as a co-debtor once the father files is very basic and I would not expect an experienced bankruptcy attorney to not be able to answer such a query.  From quickly looking the attorney up online, he seems experienced and should have been able to answer the question.  Trying to use the excuse that he didn't tell me about the effect on the son as the reason to change his mind about the filing, especially after he paid the money after he supposedly asked the question and never bothered in his own narrative to get the answer, bothered me about the plaintiff.  Again, the bankruptcy would not change or create the son's liability, it just doesn't solve the son's liability.  I think common sense should have answered this question for the plaintiff and his acting ignorant and claiming to be just a working man is ridiculous. 

I also hated his planned narrative that started with his being 'burnt', no, not by the defendant but by others not paying him as his excuse for having to file bankruptcy like that has anything to do with the case at hand.  

A big issue was made by the plaintiff of the attorney asking for additional documents after the petition was supposedly completed and waiting to be reviewed and signed so as to prove the attorney never completed the petition and did not deserve to get paid.  The attorney never answered this, but with time passing between when the petition was ready and when it was being reviewed and signed, a gap was created that would necessitate additional documents like up-to-date pay statements, which are needed for information in the petition and need to be supplied to the court, and perhaps the most recent credit card statements.  That is what I think could have happened. 

I thought it hilarious when he ran out passed Doug all angry that he lost.  

Edited February 13, 2019 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Dueling Sharons over the same car, borrowed the plaintiff's car,

One of the most garbled, ridiculous cases ever? So, if you choose to break the law and take drugs for 20 years, you get disability payments for that? Whatever, but I really think she IS disabled mentally, probably from all the damned drugs. JM was quite bemused at her proud announcement that she drove for 20 years with no license. Plaintiff Sharon, despite the huge cross hanging around her neck, is a liar and a fraud, who clearly bought the car for the nitwit other Sharon, because def Sharon can't buy a car in her own name, of course. Plaintiff had her insurance cancelled because it seems she and her hubby can't drive without racking up tickets and having accidents and letting unlicensed drivers use her car. OH, what a tangled web we weave! However, def Sharon spoke the truth when she stated, "It ain't never been nobody else's car but mine." Her account of the accident was laughable. She opened her door into traffic, but the person who hit her door because he/she couldn't avoid it did it on purpose! JM was very annoyed at her head-bobbing and her coaching of her son, who appeared to be well past the age where he can answer questions himself.

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Sharon #2 was supposedly paying $187 a month for insurance, so it comes out to almost $2200 a year?   Does that seem high?   

For me it seems incredibly high, since I pay 37$ a month, but I don't get tickets every time I go out and don't play demolition derby with my car.  Her rates are what you would see for some 18-year old boy.

We had the seafood stand owners suing the wide-eyed boy def for defective equipment.

56 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

I dislike JM's applying her bias that young people are irresponsible. 

I think JM's problem with him was that he claims he's just a delivery driver, but that's not true, since he deals with sales, warranties and repairs. When things go well, he's in charge. When they don't, he's "Not my fault!" just a driver. Part of being an adult who is in business is taking responsibilty for what you do.

One plaintiff claims he gets excited because he's a chef and losing food makes him crazy. I'm sorry, but anyone specializing in seafoood who serves FROZEN lobster and crab is no chef. I've eaten many a lobster roll in the Maritimes and never was it frozen. That's just nasty. Did neither of them examine this equipment before buying and notice it was held together with duct tape and janky wiring? But I guess not since  they seem to think it impossible that  "one Jew would screw over another Jew". Yeah, because I automatically and totally trust any stranger if they happen to have an Irish last name or maybe if they have blue eyes and red hair since that means we have a cultural bond. No, not really. No way.

Lawn care plaintiff suing def. for unpaid services: Def, the Nutty Professor, works at Yale and again proves to me that education does NOT equal intelligence (or integrity or morality). Plaintiff knows what he's talking about and has proof and pics of what he did. Def whines that the grass didn't grow (plaintiff says def complained about this 3 days later) and stiffs plaintiff for 400$, using as proof of his incompetence pics he took before the services, so he's dishonest too. Plaintiff's photos clearly show a lush, green lawn. Plaintiff was totally credible and he got the 400$ he was owed since he earned it.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I hated the seafood case defendant's unbuttoned shirt, thick gold chain, and his smerky attitude.   

Yes, people who are addicts, get disability, but usually require a payee (a person who receives the money, and makes sure it goes for the receiver's needs. like rent).

He reminded me of the Jersey Shore crowd. 

Edited February 14, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 minute ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I hated the seafood case defendant's unbuttoned shirt, thick gold chain, and his smerky attitude. 

No kidding. I wish JM had told him to button his shirt. No one wanted to see  his pallid chest and the "sexy" hairs peeking out because he doesn't know how to dress himself or thinks it's hot enough to win over JM. It is not.  We already know JM doesn't get the allure of toyboys.

[Bazinga]

38 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I think JM's problem with him was that he claims he's just a delivery driver, but that's not true, since he deals with sales, warranties and repairs. When things go well, he's in charge. When they don't, he's "Not my fault!" just a driver. Part of being an adult who is in business is taking responsibilty for what you do.

But JM didn't say that and the defendant didn't really say that he wasn't responsible because he was just a driver.  That baby driver is an employee means he should not be sued in his own right, the owner of the business should be, and that was why the case against him got dismissed.   That was his point, I am not the owner I am just a driver.  As an employee he is not the responsible party.  That isn't shirking responsibility by hiding behind his job title.  He never hid behind his age or job, he just was saying he is not the owner, which he might not be.  JM assumed he must be irresponsible because of his age and questioning why he was left in charge being so young.  JM was all over that he is just twenty and should not be the one defending the company in court, when he really had to be the one defending the company as he was the one with the  personal knowledge.  That is ageism.  Yes, JM suspected he had a greater role based on his being given the Conn when Captain Kirk was off the ship.  She was assuming he must be an owner or relative to be given so much responsibility.  That is a bias on her part, too.  Maybe he is the only employee and he is de facto the one in charge when the owner is away.  Why can't it be as simple as that?  JM was definitely commenting about someone his age not being responsible enough to both handle the business and represent the company in court and that she would not have done either.  Again, twenty is an adult, so I don't approve of her making an issue of his age so as to seem like that was the reason for her decision when it should not have been.  It bugged me and she does it a lot, usually with young girls though.  JMO.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

36 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

That baby driver is an employee means he should not be sued in his own right, the owner of the business should be, and that was why the case against him got dismissed. 

Yes, this is true. The problem was that he handled everything plaintiffs were complaining about, yet claims even though he did all that he shouldn't be responsible because he's just the delivery guy. He's in touch with the owner and if he felt he couldn't deal with these issues, should have had plaintiffs call the owner and wash his hands of all of it. They dealt only with him, giving them the impression he is in control of this business. He never told them, "Hey I just make deliveries!" I've never known of a delivery person making business decisions for any company, and if the owner gave him authorization to do so, then it is on him.

39 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

It bugged me and she does it a lot, usually with young girls though.  JMO.

Agree. I've mentioned before how it annoys me that just because her daughter is a total coddled baby who, even though a grown woman at 21, it seems she can't leave the house without supervision, then this must be so for all 21-year olds. I must say that watching these court shows kind of reinforces that 20-year-olds of today are in general equivalent to 14-year olds of the past but every case must be decided on its own merits. And yeah, even more irritating when she glosses over the rotten things college girls do. "Hey, we're kids!" No, you're not. I really dislike that.

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, Bazinga said:

I would like to note that JM usually reduces attorney fees that were agreed upon to what is "reasonable." I don't like that she does this in attorney cases yet she doesn't apply reasonableness to other contract situations like a car deal,

She also does it to building contractors, the other field besides law she considers herself to be an expert in because her family had a construction business. I guess she just breathed in all the knowledge and expertise.

Usually, when she reduces an attorney's fees it appears like she screwed the poor shyster and recompensed an ungrateful client with unrealistic expectations. Curiously, she comes across as more sure-footed when she does rough justice in construction cases.

2 hours ago, Bazinga said:

I dislike JM applying her bias that young people are irresponsible.

She may be putting together a demo reel for when JJ retires (or dies on the bench). She has to start showing that she can mimick her prejudices convincingly.

[CrazyInAlabama]

On the new case it was an animal breeder/hoarder, and her former friend of 40 years, both were sitting down, and on their last, gasping breath.     It was over puppy custody, and the plaintiff should realize an animal hoarder like the defendant will never let any of those animals go.     

The security guard vs. the drunken DUI woman (just had her third DUI) who got fired, and then went right to the liquor store was only funny because Judge M. lectured the woman about drunk driving, followed by zero money for the drunken plaintiff, and the plaintiff marching past Doug in the hall.       Maybe getting canned after your third DUI doesn't mean you immediately go to the nearest liquor store, and try to score weed.  

The rerun of the older woman who couldn't carry seven little baggies of some parts left in a car she repo'd in the middle of the night herself was ludicrous.    Judge M. gave her $1500 on a case that included allegations that she forged documents, and I certainly think she did that.     The judgment should have been zero for both sides.

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

On the new case it was an animal breeder/hoarder, and her former friend of 40 years, both were sitting down,

I started watching that but it made me so sick - this nasty hulk who carelessly breeds her dog, yet can't even tell the difference between a male and a female - that I skipped it. Ugh. Gross.

The first case: At the start I thought "How the hell can you get fired from a housekeeping job?" I soon found out. Plaintiff, a 34-year old woman, stands there explaining how she picked up def. Dayshawn or Rayshawn - not sure -  who is 20, because she thought he was 27. Anyway, he's a security guard who she says is also a drug dealer (interesting combination of careers). She figures why the hell should she work when she can be a drug dealer too, selling bags of weed and sitting on her ass getting high all the time. So, she starts getting weed from def and selling it. They get into some bickering about drugs I guess, and she drives to his place. She casually states she wasn't supposed to be driving. She has no license since she's had THREE DUIs. She stands there admitting to all these crimes as though it's no big deal. JM's face is like, "I cannot frickin' believe what I'm hearing." Plaintiff also sends def about 1000 illiterate "texes" in installments of 3 words at a time and using the unspeakable "N" word.  So - in kerfuffle with security guard/drug user and peddler, she pulls a knife and he pulls his gun. Should someone who does security work be high? It soon became obvious why plaintiff was fired. No doubt she was on the job completely pissed off her skull. This case was surreal. Have we ever had anyone else stand and volunteer to relate their crimes in such a matter-of-fact manner?

Didn't see the middle case. Some urgent special report broke in with news that couldn't wait one hour until the news program.

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The rerun of the older woman who couldn't carry seven little baggies of some parts left in a car she repo'd in the middle of the night herself was ludicrous.

If that's the case I missed, no problem. That woman was ridiculous.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The older woman with the baggies of parts from her repo'd car was a rerun (I get either 2 reruns weekday mornings, or 1 rerun, and 1 new).    I'm not sure the other case for the new episode was all that great since I skipped it.  

Since being stoned isn't really a disqualifier at most housekeeping jobs, my guess is things disappeared from areas she had under her control, and she got caught.  

Edited February 14, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

52 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Since being stoned isn't really a disqualifier at most housekeeping jobs

It probably is if you're falling-down drunk and pulling knives on people. But yeah, someone like this plaintiff would probably swipe anything that wasn't nailed down. I just dont' get how someone can have 3 DUIs and still be free to keep driving. It's like they only get punished for the first DUI and the others are freebies.

[Bramble]

Bikes, I know bikes. Plaintiff was out of gas from the start because buying a used bike is just as much of a crap shoot as a used car, maybe more because people do switch out the stock parts, even something like the fork. More so with high-end bike because serious riders can be finicky. There’s no guarantee that every part on a 4 year old used bike would be the same as what the manufacturer says (sometimes the bike store even switches things out before they sell it for the first time.) The Plaintiff needed to look directly at the bike and made sure that everything on the bike when she was buying it met her needs. And buying a bike without riding it, I can’t fathom that. 

Edited February 15, 2019 by Bramble

[CrazyInAlabama]

I loved the woman who claimed they illegally towed her car from BJ's (Warehouse Club), from the no parking zone, and she was trying to get money back for her spoiled milk.    The defense that no one towed her before, from what was obviously a no parking area was ludicrous, but entertaining to watch. 

My guess is that if her kids were traumatized, it was by their mother acting like a loon at the store after she found out her car had been towed.    I had to laugh when the picture of the parking lot showed a car parked illegally also, and she was indignant that the other car wasn't towed also.           

Edited February 15, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[zillabreeze]

Okey Dokey. To Cupid lips in the parking space- if your kids are TRAUMATIZED by a car tow, real life is gonna be seriously difficult for them.

[Florinaldo]

1 minute ago, zillabreeze said:

Okey Dokey. To Cupid lips in the parking space- if your kids are TRAUMATIZED by a car tow, real life is gonna be seriously difficult for them.

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

[zillabreeze]

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

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

Edited February 15, 2019 by zillabreeze

[AngelaHunter]

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

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

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

[Broderbits]

43 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

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

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

[AngelaHunter]

44 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

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

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