Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Lillybee

The People's Court

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I do not know what is worse: that she thinks she is "so pretty", that she has a number of followers who appear to agree and are open to being "influenced" by her, or that JM did not bother to try and disillusion her (it probably would not have worked, but still...).

How perfect would this comeback have been?

Capture.JPG

Edited by AZChristian · Reason: Deleted edit . . . wrong court show. Been sick and my brain hasn't caught up yet.
  • Laugh 12

Share this post


Link to post

Today's motorcycle payment case.  It looked like the main requirement for sitting in the first two rows behind the plaintiff was that you had to be an attractive young woman with brown hair, parted in the middle.

There was a redhead and a blond behind the defendant.

That's all I've got.

  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Today's motorcycle payment case.

And they bred. I would so want to have a kid with someone who thinks the most important thing, what he really needs after the birth of a child is to get a motorcycle he can't afford and of course he lost his job. I would think it's a great idea too. You picked a real winner, lady. Another great example of "Litigant Priorities."

The rerun of the goofy over-aged boy who thinks he's cute and his mold problem: I just realized he refused to go to a doctor for all his terrible symptoms because he was afraid it might mess up his worker's compensation payments. I bet he's living with his mommy by now. It was Valentine's Day! I bet his girlfriend dumped him when she opened her eyes and realized what a big, silly baby she had.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Hey everyone, first post here. I have been lurking and enjoying all the "snark" from you guys for a long time. Thank you, especially SRtouch and AngelaHunter for all your in-depth analysis of these morons on the show.

About today's rerun. In the second case about the cell phone. I could swear the plaintiff said OPtober instead of OCtober several times. I don't have DVR, could one of you that has the show recorded go back and see if I am correct? If not, no biggie, just wondered if I was hearing things. I went back to the Sept. 3rd 2018 comments (when this episode first aired) and didn't see anyone mentioning it.

Anyway, thanks again to all the commenters here for your entertaining recaps of TPC shows. I may not post but every now and then, but know I am enjoying reading what you all have to say.

  • Like 8
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Bdrums1971 said:

About today's rerun. In the second case about the cell phone. I could swear the plaintiff said OPtober instead of OCtober several times. I don't have DVR, could one of you that has the show recorded go back and see if I am correct? If not, no biggie, just wondered if I was hearing things. I went back to the Sept. 3rd 2018 comments (when this episode first aired) and didn't see anyone mentioning it.

Welcome to the world of posting!!!  

I watched this yesterday (didn't see it when it originally aired).  Yep, she was definitely saying "OPtober" . . . and repeated it several times.

ETA:  I wonder if she has a pet optopus.

Edited by AZChristian
  • Like 2
  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Bdrums1971 said:

Hey everyone, first post here. I have been lurking and enjoying all the "snark" from you guys for a long time.

Welcome!🙂 Snark is theraputic.

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

I watched this yesterday (didn't see it when it originally aired).  Yep, she was definitely saying "OPtober" . . . and repeated it several times.

Really? I didn't even notice that, but I had my CC on and it usually corrects the more ridiculous words. Too bad. If the word is unrecognizable in any language it just says [unintelligible]. It always leaves in the horrific grammar though. I like it when it does that.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

On 11/21/2019 at 3:37 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

In the neighbor's car nailed by tree branch, I was shocked at how much branch removal cost the plaintiff, $4k.   The defendant reminded me of some 50's era actress.    Then, there was the big hug by both women, and MM coming off the bench to join in.    

Late to the party as usual,  but I just had to comment on these charming ladies. I thought that the D was a dead ringer for Helena Bonham Carter.

I hope that not-HBC sues the pants off the uber-expensive arborist who did a shitty ass job.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/15/2019 at 10:30 AM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Did anyone else see today's new one about the parents (I missed the beginning, so there was some kind of guardianship or foster situation) where plaintiffs were suing defendants for letting their 14 year old foster daughter hide in their house, so their 17 year (almost 17) son could have free access?      For six days the police, SWAT teams, helicopters were looking for the missing 14 year old.    She was hidden the entire time in the boyfriend's house, the mother was hiding her, and supposedly, grinning idiot dad didn't find out until the police showed up and found her.   

The texts from the girl and her boyfriend were chilling.    Sadly, with a child plotting against them, in the parents place I would call CPS and have her removed from my house.    It's an ID channel documentary waiting to happen. 

Since then, the defendants let the girl hang out with the son at their house.    When the police returned the girl one time, a few minutes later a mysterious CPS complaint was received.    I couldn't believe the plaintiffs couldn't get a restraining order or charges against the defendant parents.    It was infuriating to me that the defendant father kept smirking through the case too.    He actually seemed to think it was funny that when the son turns 17 the plaintiffs will file statutory rape charges.    It amazes me that the defendant mother is the only one still facing legal charges, and I hope they jail her.   

The people reminded me of the neighborhood parents where I grew up, who let kids stay in their basement apartment, until one turned out to be a fugitive, and was dealing out of their house.    Lots of kids stayed in that house, and the parents never knew where they were.   

They had this on my rerun episode this morning.   It's as revolting as the first time. and apparently the 14 year old and her boyfriend are now engaged.   I hope the parents of the girl do file statutory rape charges against the son, and I hope his idiot mother gets prison time.     There is no way on earth that the boy's parents weren't behind the CPS report either.     I can't believe a legitimate organization has this man counseling young people.    The wife was horrible.     I hope the plaintiffs got the girl out of their house, because the wife is in serious danger from this girl.   I can't believer nothing was done about the defendants harboring a run away, and wasting thousands of dollars of police salaries.    

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I never saw today's eps. The crazy witch suing her landlord for her pontoon boat and medical bills seemed to get progressively nuttier as the case went on. She wanted to be evicted because of the terrible horrible conditions under which she was living. The landlord complied with her request but she didn't clear out when ordered to because it was inconvenient to take her massive boat with her. She had to look for her cat, you see, that was lost in hurricane Irma nearly two months previously. No, she has no doctor report for the injuries she suffered falling through the floor because of all the black mold or whatever. She gets nothing, and rambles on about how justice favours robbers or some shit. She informed Doug in Hall of same, and he didn't agree.

Then we had Carleton Banks suing Bilbo the Hobbit for locking him out of his premises and stealing all his stuff, that he values at over 4K. He had a notice of eviction, but wrote to the judge to explain why he didn't pay his rent. Okay, that should work. He comes home and the locks are changed. Management hobbit, like most landlords and management companies we see,  seems to have absolutely no idea what the laws are concerning anything at all about evictions, and defends himself by saying, "We had a verbal agreement about him moving out." That's not working for him and plaintiff seems to be in the right until we see pictures of how plaintiff and his family left the place. We do have "Before" pics from def. and the place had been newly renovated and looked very nice. The disgusting,fetid nest left behind was kind of shocking. The stove was wrecked, the toilet broken (how does a person even do that kind of stuff?) and there was trash everywhere.  I get it - if someone else is paying the mortgage on a  place you don't give a shit what havoc you wreak on it, but this was a whole different level. It looked like a posse of raccoons lived there. Naturally plaintiff denies all that and seems to insinuate def went in and made that mess just for the lulz. JM doesn't buy it, which provokes a, "Listen to me, and listen good," from plaintiff, which is always a good way to address a judge, although JM didn't seem as annoyed by that as she has been at being called "m'am" by perfectly respectful people. Whatever. No one gets anything, since def doctored up some phony cleaning bill, but he does get to keep the 300$ deposit. Doug in the Hall tries to make plaintiff understand why he lost. His efforts were in vain and it turned into a big, "Yes, it does" and "No, it doesn't" which echoed all the way down the hall.

Finally, another used car deal gone wrong. Plaintiff wants a car and sees one for sale at def's used car lot. He phones them and tells them he wants it, but when he goes a few days later, they've sold it. Well, duh - did he think they'd turn down a customer standing there with cash in hand for some guy on the phone who might never show up? He takes an hour-long bus ride to the dealer  and they offer him another vehicle for $5500, which comes to 5900$ because he has terrible credit and he accepts and gives them a 1K down payment which he says he borrowed from his father. Then it seems he changed his mind for whatever reason - the brakes were bad during the test drive, etc -  and wants his money back, even after dealer tells him he has been approved for the loan and he's told the brakes will be fixed.  Def owner stupidly says she'll refund the money and keeps telling him she transferred it to his account but never does it. This goes on for so long that JM tells her she obligated herself by all the lying texts to paying it back, even though she absolutely did not have to. I think he wanted money for pain and suffering. Or maybe the second plaintiff wanted that. I forget.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know which of the plaintiffs I wanted to slap more.    All three were clueless, vile, and lying about everything.    I think the woman with the boat was the worst.  And her injuries from the home being in bad condition were ridiculous.  She left a pontoon boat behind, and thought that an eviction by marshals meant she could ignore the drop dead date.   I wish they had a video of her having a hissy fit when she saw her boat was locked up, and then when it was dumped on the road.    

However, the car guy, and the other evicted tenant were clueless too.     Poor Doug certainly earned his pay interviewing today's plaintiffs.  

Today's rerun was an old one about the two person house, where the tenant who was in the apartment for less than a year smoked inside so much that it cost over the $1100 security (I think about that price) to clean.     The landlords lived in the other floor, it was in the lease that it was non-smoking, and the man signed that in the lease.    He claims he only smoked inside once, and that was when his landlord caught him (landlord looked through the bedroom window, and saw the man smoking in bed, a great way to drop some ash, and end up a crispy critter).    So all of the times the man was smoking inside, he claims he only did it once, and got caught that time?       The landlords also lied to the next landlord and didn't say he smoked, and smoked indoors, because they were so desperate to get him to move.      The cleaners earned every penny, because they had to clean all of the walls, and ceiling, all of the cabinets, and other surfaces, and the cleaning cloths they used were nasty looking.     The old goat plaintiff still whined to Doug that he was being mistreated by not being awarded his security back.     I hope the current landlord saw this, and that the lease had an eviction clause for smoking indoors. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/6/2019 at 4:24 PM, meowmommy said:

When I see a young woman heavily made-up, I see a future old woman with terrible skin because she clogged up her face with crap all those years.

I've seen it first hand with a girl I graduated high school with (1985, btw), she wore caked on foundation, blush, mascara, eye shadow and would reapply in the bathroom through out the day. Today her skin is very dry and scaly looking. She still cakes on the make up too, which makes it look even worse.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I never saw one of today's reruns, that of the "Rental Car Ruckus." Oh, god! I'm starting to use corny, dumb Levin-crap. Speaking of Levin - "I Hate Those Meeses to Pieces"? I am simply awestruck at his rapier-like wit and comedic talent. You go, Mr. "I Like to Text and Drive Because I'm so Important" Levin.

Anyway, I would have no problem letting my sister and her loser, deadbeat boyfriend bunk in with me for free. Of course I wouldn't expect him to pay any rent even though he's an adult who has a job. Mr. Potato Head needs to keep his cash! He has no credit and no money - which is hard to understand since he doesn't pay for his own living expenses, courtesy of the idiotic plaintiff -  so when "they stole" his car, naturally I would extend MY credit to rent a car for him. JM wants to know why she would do this, and we get an "I don't know. I like to be friendly", and even though he's stiffed everyone else she's  sure he'll pay her back. Do any of these middleaged people have the slightest idea of how stupid and ridiculous they sound?

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

All caught up with the new episodes!

 

On 12/6/2019 at 4:13 PM, Florinaldo said:

Each time I see someone as heavily made-up as she was, I can't help but think they are trying to hide their true self under all that artificiality.

I do not know what is worse: that she thinks she is "so pretty", that she has a number of followers who appear to agree and are open to being "influenced" by her, or that JM did not bother to try and disillusion her (it probably would not have worked, but still...).

I got the impression that JM was very unimpressed by her from the get-go.  When JM first asked her why she had so many followers, she answered: "...because I'm so pretty and people like what I wear...." JM said "so what, lots of people are pretty and dress nice - why do you have 50K followers?"

Ooh - snap!

I enjoyed the plaintiff in this case.  She was not having any of it and was very pleased to win her case.

On 12/6/2019 at 9:13 PM, AngelaHunter said:

The only interesting part of the roommate thing - other than the def who had a 2-year lease but had something to take care of and just walked out. He couldn't pay anything because he needed his money for other stuff - was JM asking def how he thought plaintiff could find someone else so easily. "What do you think? You just get someone from CL and move them in the next day?" Well, yes, of course. That's the usual procedure of the people we see here.

Or even better!  You don't have to actually go out and find somebody.  You can come home from a night of partying and find them passed out drunk on your front porch.  And then you can invite them in to live with you AND pay all their expenses too!  🤣

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/2/2019 at 1:43 PM, SRTouch said:

ex-roomie fight: p says it got too point where she couldn't take D's controlling ways - says when she moved out D wouldn't let her take all her stuff, wants $1700+...... wheelchair bound D argues P was verbally and physically abusive, stole stuff and left owing for utilities - countersuing for $2100+ (actually, turns out it was a walker, and part of counterclaim is from when P allegedly tossed walker down stairs/steps)....... watching sour puss P storm into courtroom would be enough for me to veto idea of renting a room to her in my house, and hearing D talk in preview is like chalkboard screech - nope, wouldn't want to rent a room with her........ actually, don't really even want to listen to these two, so I just hold down the FF button and zip through to decision..... just as well, I need to head out to the lab for results from last week's tests for doctor's appointment tomorrow  (which BTW will prompt tomorrow's recap)....... anyway, MM P awards $481 

This reran this morning, and both litigants are just as revolting as they were the first time.   They are not improving with age.      Both women were awful.    The defendant was almost as bizarre as the plaintiff, and I don't see how anyone puts up with or lives with either one. 

They reran the landscaping fail first, and that was ludicrous.     Nice try by the homeowner to get plans from a professional, and (in my opinion) try to use the plans to get someone to do everything cheaper for him.  

(My local station has a bizarre A.M. schedule, Judge Mathis, then Peoples (new, if there is one), then another Mathis, and then another Peoples Court.   However, the new one is at 8 a.m., but the cable guide always shows the title for the 10 a.m. one, and then the 10 a.m. one description is shown for the 8 a.m. slot).     

Edited by CrazyInAlabama

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

This reran this morning, and both litigants are just as revolting as they were the first time.

I had a different rerun - not too surprising as I know our schedules differ (ie, I only get 2 JJ where some folks get 4).

I had a rerun originally aired on 27 Feb '19 and discussed way back on page 129 on my tablet. 1st case on this episode lasted 40 minutes. Real nutcase D, has rented room to a long list of tenants. Her last renter here suing, saying 'old lady' made living there impossible. (D describes herself as an 'old lady' but refuses to tell MM her age.) First go round on this one I gave up on recap until I had chance to finish second cup of coffee - today I had already finished 2nd cup - didn't help much. Went back and checked previous recap, saw that the good stuff started when P's witnesses testify, so zipped ahead and started watching at 30 minutes mark. Yep, last 10 minutes worth watching as P witness is excellent. This is case where MM interrupts 'old (land)lady' to say she (MM) wouldn't live as D's tenant 22 seconds. Before case is over we learn a total of 8 ex-tenants have sued after moving out (who knows how many others had cause to sue and were willing to forget money D should have returned.... D testifies early in case she has had - maybe - 6 roommates and we learn she has been sued by 8?.... along with everything else, turns out D is illegally overcharging her roomies as she's in a rent controlled apartment and again leads to D refusing to answer MM's questions...... Judge Marilyn is really miffed at D and not only returns last month and security deposit, but decides nutty landlady doesn't even get to keep rent (P there less than a month) for month P lived there.

2nd case is sour car sale: from Feb recap I didn't watch this one, and after intro/preview skipped it again today. 60yo sold car to daughter's 30 yo friend. Defense is that perverted old dude (old dude actually younger than I am) made moves on daughter's friend and promised to make car a gift if she went out with him. (hooptie for whoopie?) Recap tells me old dude did put moves on younger girl, but never offered to give her car. Girl ordered to pay for 3 grand for car. Pretty sure her parents aren't proud of her defense or hallterview where she tells Doug age isn'the important, she's more interested in personality - yeah right, sweetie

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Last week they had Kelly Jo from the dog boarding and grooming one, and this morning, she's back on my TV again.    I can't believe people don't look at the reviews, and information about dog boarding places before leaving their dogs for days at a time.     This morning was the refused refund, that the plaintiffs received back, but they also brought up the death of another dog in this woman's care.   That dog owner was told their dog died in it's sleep, then later were told the vet said the dog had a seizure, and then the vet said that the dog had been shredded by a bunch of other dogs, and died from wounds, including a shredded trachea.      It took 30 seconds of searching for me to find the past reviews of her boarding, grooming, and breeding business to see that there are a ton of complaints against the company, so why didn't other buyers, or boarders do the same?   

I'm glad the plaintiff's received their money back, but a little research would have told them to consider what might happen.  

The Waiting for Hurricane Dorian case was ridiculous.     I do love Judge Marilyn's remark about waiting for Dorian to hit was like being stalked by a turtle.     

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Last week they had Kelly Jo from the dog boarding and grooming on, and this morning, she's back on my TV again.    I can't believe people don't look at the reviews, and information about dog boarding places before leaving their dogs for days at a time.

Absolutely..... MM could add that to her 'does your phone take pictures' question. Everyone with a smartphone and Internet access should use that access for something besides checking their FB status. Buying a car? Carfax at your fingertips. Going to leave your loved one (furry/bare baby or senior) at daycare?  Take a couple seconds and check the reviews. Need a contracor/handyman or just car windows tinted? Check Yelp/BBB/and even whoever issues the license for that business for bad reviews/complaints. Thinking of renting a spare bedroom? Do a freekin' background check.That smart phone gives you all the info you need (along with more computing oomph than the astronauts going to the moon). Guess that may be giving some of these litigants too much credit..... after all, they put their bff/cousin/new main-squeeze-they-met-last-week on their 2 year phone plan contract when they find out Sprint won't give them the latest iPhone because of bad credit

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Do a freekin' background check.

But they do, just like they get a mechanic to check the ancient heaps they buy, but they do these things after they've moved the thief/con artist/drug addict/violent ex-con in and after they pay for the car. Then they come here and proclaim they did these things because "I trusted the total stranger! I have a big heart!"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

But they do, just like they get a mechanic to check the ancient heaps they buy, but they do these things after they've moved the thief/con artist/drug addict/violent ex-con in and after they pay for the car. Then they come here and proclaim they did these things because "I trusted the total stranger! I have a big heart!"

Hi people. 

it’s good to be back. I’ve spent the past several weeks shuttling between Boston, Indy and Phoenix.  Family and work reasons.  

Anyway, Angela’s above post reminded me of the “big hearted” chick who invited a parolee (she found sleeping on the front steps of her apartment) to come share her warm bed as well as sit on his skinny butt all day eating cereal.  

Please believe me that I encounter all sorts of personalities on any given day but this woman (didn’t she sport bluish; grayish hair) takes the therapy cake. Where do you start?  Self-esteem issues?  Safety issues?  Parenting issues?  Developmental relationship rules?

I know my jaw dropped at this particular case so it comes as no surprise that there are foolish individuals who can’t even comprehend the simple idea of a background check on someone who asserts they’re “animal specialists”...I’m also talking to you doughy, drunk so called dog trainer who brags about his sexual conquests and idiot dog owner who participates in sleazy banter with him on Facebook!

So despite my absence I’ve done my best to keep up.  The one bright spot is that these court shows gave me a small break from taking care of my mother-in-law who is fading fast.  As I get older I realize how precious a really good laugh is, and you my buddies on this board never disappoint.

Happy New Year!


 

 


 

 


 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

As I get older I realize how precious a really good laugh is, and you my buddies on this board never disappoint.

Yeah, I have been through that too. Sometimes you are in a bad situation that you can't fix and you can't walk away from because of family obligatipons, any brief humorous respite can save your sanity.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

As I get older I realize how precious a really good laugh is, and you my buddies on this board never disappoint.

Sorry for your troubles, and wave hi when you're in Phoenix.  

Escapism and schadenfreude, both of which TPC has in droves, can do wonders to ease a heavy heart.

I've been deeply worried about something for almost two years now, and yesterday it resolved.  It didn't resolve the way I wanted it to, but another alternative made itself available and I'm taking it, gladly.  Amazing how the anxiety that's been keeping me up started to melt away, but I could feel the physical residuals from living with all that anxiety.  Of course, I'm up now at 3:12 am typing this, but not from anxiety.  Happy New Year to everyone.

I have TPC set to record new episodes only, and I don't even watch all of them.  My New Year's wish for them, as always, is that they burn down the cheesy, antiquated set and build something decent, cut the format to a half hour so they can do two short cases like JJ, and send Levin to the retirement home where he can irritate the nurses with "Pisser?  He hardly knew 'er!"  

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I have TPC set to record new episodes only, and I don't even watch all of them.  My New Year's wish for them, as always, is that they burn down the cheesy, antiquated set and build something decent, cut the format to a half hour so they can do two short cases like JJ, and send Levin to the retirement home where he can irritate the nurses with "Pisser?  He hardly knew 'er!"  

Same here. Started to watch a rerun recently and ended up zipping through most of first case and skipped second except intro & judgement. Good news, if my DVR program info is correct, we'll be getting new episodes next week. Bad news, probably more of the same type, which I have to admit to still being burnt out on.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, many of the cases are starting to sound alike.

This morning bizarre rerun was the delightful story of a woman buying a car from her neighbor, which of course turned into garbage.    However, the entertaining part was when the plaintiff/buyer's boyfriend took his car, and rammed the seller/defendant's car early one morning, followed by the fun video of the quiet, nice plaintiff screaming so much filth on the video.

Followed by the fool who told the concrete mason how she wanted the patio done, and was told it wouldn't drain, and she wanted all of her money back.   Case was dismissed when she hired him to do other work for her eleven months later.    

The sad one was the case where the day the father died, another daughter took the family dog, that had been living with that family for years.     Because it was all in probate, the case had to get thrown back to the probate judge.    I hope the kid got his dog back, but I'm guessing if the court's decision went against the greedy sister, that the dog will mysteriously run away before the police come to liberate the poor dog. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/31/2019 at 9:00 PM, PsychoKlown said:

The one bright spot is that these court shows gave me a small break from taking care of my mother-in-law who is fading fast.

Sorry to hear that. I know what that's like.

On 12/31/2019 at 9:00 PM, PsychoKlown said:

 As I get older I realize how precious a really good laugh is, and you my buddies on this board never disappoint.

I've realized that for quite some time. No matter how down I've been I know I can always come here and often end up roaring with laughter at the glorious and inspired snark. It's invaluable.

On 1/1/2020 at 5:18 AM, meowmommy said:

send Levin to the retirement home where he can irritate the nurses with "Pisser?  He hardly knew 'er!"  

See? Here's a perfect example! 🤣😂

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

On 12/6/2019 at 1:24 PM, meowmommy said:

When I see a young woman heavily made-up, I see a future old woman with terrible skin because she clogged up her face with crap all those years.

I have to thank my young self for not caring about makeup, I'm hitting middle aged and it's still fine 🙂

I tried to find the spider-eyed influencer but my google-fu failed me.

  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Jamoche said:

I tried to find the spider-eyed influencer but my google-fu failed me.

You really need to see, "I'm pretty and I know how to dress even though everything you see here is fake."

 

  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

You really need to see, "I'm pretty and I know how to dress even though everything you see here is fake."

 

Yep, that was yesterday's rerun. I just couldn't find her youtube channel, or wherever it is that she "influences".

Edited by Jamoche

Share this post


Link to post

My guess is most of the followers are people who are not tuning in to see how she dresses, or think she's pretty, I bet it's mostly hate watching.      I had to laugh at the influencer saying she was so popular, and such a great hairdresser, and the poor plaintiff left looking like I cut her hair (that's not good either, no one would have me cut their hair and expect to look good).   The edge of the weave or whatever it was sticking out was awful.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

New cases start out with same old story.....

  1. roomie kerfuffle: dude moves into bedroom in apartment being rented - after a couple weeks (suspiciously, right after he paid the next month's rent) there's a big kerfuffle - apparently one of couple subletting the room jumps on him for not doing his share of cleaning - during screaming match, black girl yells she's not going to clean up after him like her ancestors did for his white ancestors - then she repeatedly yells at him to stop attacking her, but MM gets her to admit there was no physical threat, just yelling - he says he suggested posting a chore list, but that apparently wasn't good enough for her - he moves out, but when he texts asking for deposit and the next month rent her mommy, who doesn't live there but is on the lease, sues for all the rent he would have paid over duration of lease - oh, and dude is served with domestic violence protective order at work..... hmmmm, D trying to argue kerfuffle was no big deal, and certainly not cause for him to move out, yet she filed for a protective order.....ok, dude has the court decision which dismissed mommy's attempt to collect rent, and has the protective order D filed keeping him from staying in room he had already paid to rent...... ok, dude gets back the rent he paid plus the deposit, but for some reason MM doesn't agree to award pain and suffering ($1250 not 3 grand plus)
  2. mover busted P's mirrored bed: p says movers smelled of weed, and during move busted the mirror - wants the $863 replacement cost..... D comes in accepting responsibility, but argues P wants to much...... seems simple, but may be learning experience for anyone hiring movers - need to read the fine print and consider buying mover insurance - lots of the standard movers' contracts leave alot to be desired - and a lot of people go for lotto money if something is damaged..... ok, no insurance,  but doesn't really matter since D agreed to replace the mirror (which apparently is custom made to fit the massive bed headboard.... D told P he'd pay for replacement once p got an estimate - problem is, D didn't like the estimate - no, he didn't bother to call around and get his own estimate, he 'knows what it should cost, 'cuz he's been in the business a long time.' Sorry dude, your vast experience doesn't trump an actual estimate on TPC (though JJ may go with her own vast experience)..... ah, and when MM tells him he should have got his own estimate he ends up arguing with the lady in black who gets the final say - never smart.... ok, dude finally admits he has an estimate for the mirror, and brought along his foreman who was going to install the glass - ah, but apples and oranges, D's estimate is for the mirror to be cut to wrong size and nothing about what the foreman would charge to install it, while P is for finished product, mirror cut and installed..... so does P get to choose who installs it?..... oh, and 'nother twist to case - everybody agrees P first said he wasn't going to tip the movers, but then gave generous $400 tip after D promised to pay for replacement.... D did offer to pay $300 for the mirror, even though he says it could be replaced for around $100, but thing is P tipped $400 after D promised to pay...... ok, rough justice - MM thinks P estimate is high, but D made verbal agreement to replace it (even though he didn'the have to since the written contract gave him an out - MM awards $500
  3. bathroom reno failure: P story is they paid contractor a deposit to do reno that was never done, wants $600...... D story is he is out money, agrees reno wasn't done, but says he had to pay subcontractor who lost two days work because P failed to get the approval of her landlord/COOP board - D not only wants to keep the deposit, but wants additional $600...... deposit was actually $2500, and contractor already returned $1900 - seems fair to me depending if D can show he is out money because he relied on P having approval from coop for the renovation - not sure about the additional $600 countersuit..... oops, young contractor dude drafted a weak contract - has a penalty clause but doesn't say what penalty is - having some problems with timeline here - think D said all materials and approvals had in place by Feb 12 and P didn't submit the request packet (which was to include his contractor license info) early enough for work to begin as scheduled, but P says packet was submitted, and coop board came back questioning his license - uh, so who breached if the info he supplied to be submitted was insufficient..... sort of sounds like she submitted in time, but only if everything he gave her was correct - and it would have been approved if he gave her correct info...... uh oh, dude, you just blew it when you claimed she should have known your license info may get tossed in approval process..... Apparently he thinks he could enforce the unspecified penalty clause despite his knowing there was a good chance coop board would not approve - never mind the $600 countersuit, dude will be lucky if MM let's him keep any of the deposit..... D says he offered to return the $600, but wanted assurance matter would be settled and P refused to sign a settlement agreement/waiver - MM can't understand why they're in court when both sides claim they were willing to settle.... kid contractor ordered to return the $600 - kid claims to have a lawyer, but his contract and settlement agreement/waiver make no sense according to MM
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

black girl yells she's not going to clean up after him like her ancestors did for his white ancestors

MM thought that was just so adorable.  I don't agree.

Mover defendant looked like he wore his pajamas to court.

$400 tip for the movers?  What were they moving, Buckingham Palace?

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

wants the $863 replacement cost

I thought $863 must be high, then reconsidered after looking at the oddly-shaped mirror, but when it came out that only the rectangular center section was broken, I wasn't so impressed.  Not to mention, without movers' insurance, I don't know how the defendant was obligated to pay beyond the piddly minimum.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

kid claims to have a lawyer

Kid needs a lawyer just to show him how to avoid future kerfuffles.  He was way in over his head on this one.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

MM thought that was just so adorable.  I don't agree.

I've mentioned that before. JM seems to find something funny or precious about comments/slurs/insults directed at anyone's race, religion, creed or colour, except when someone who is clearly Anglo-Saxon makes them. Then they are egregious and the speaker is in for a severe tongue-lashing. I guess it's the way she finds horrible things that teenaged girls do amusing or cute, even if their actions are disgusting. I understand she's only human and has her own biases, and I know they don't influence her decisions but she doesn't have to make them so obvious. What was truly egregious was the def getting  a restraining order on the twerp for texting her and asking for his money back.

Anyway, another "Odd Couple" weirdo roommate kerfuffle.  Why they invited this obnoxious, motor-mouthed little nerd/twerp to live with them and expected him to be Mr. Clean, I cannot imagine. Of course he was at a horror convention and of course he used "edibles". I have no idea what they are but I'm assuming they are drugs of some sort. Twerp has to live in his car and rent rooms with total strangers. Great idea to have a big dog in that situation.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

mover busted P's mirrored bed: 

400$ tip? He can hand over that kind of money but couldn't take insurance for a few dollars? Not too much interesting in this case, except for def's "mechanic." He was awesome, even though he didn't speak. He had the "my other brother, Daryl" air about him and I doubt I'd want him working on anything in my home. Def was right that the bedroom stuff and awful mirrors are so 80's but that doesn't  give him the right to say plaintiff should throw it all out. Plaintiff? Next time, take out a few dollars for insurance and just give a 390$ tip. Last of the big-time spenders!

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

bathroom reno failure: 

Contractor Boy (sorry, but everyone looks like children to me now) quickly became incoherent and ran out of excuses to keep plaintiff's money. Plaintiff, who didn't know how to stop "barking" while JM was talking or questioning def. might want to do a little more research before hiring someone to do anything more complex than filling nail holes, changing a lightbulb or raking leaves. I don't know just what she wanted done, but 5,500$ is incredibly cheap for any kind of bathroom reno. When I was doing my bathroom - and not a really major job - I was not expecting to get any quote less than 10K.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

kid claims to have a lawyer

I'm always amazed hearing litigants - many of whom don't seem to have to piss in - refer to "my lawyer" as though they keep one on retainer.😅

Edited by AngelaHunter
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I don't know just what she wanted done, but 5,500$ is incredibly cheap for any kind of bathroom reno. When I was doing my bathroom - and not a really major job - I was not expecting to get any quote less than 10K.

Hard to tell, as it depends on how big your bathroom is, how extensive a remodel you want and how fancy the fixtures, and where you live.  

13 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

What was truly egregious was the def getting  a restraining order on the twerp for texting her and asking for his money back.

Yeah, that's the kind of shit that allows some men to whine that MeToo and domestic violence interventions are overused.  If the guy had been a gal, would the def have been so quick to file and would the judge have been so willing to grant?

I'm surprised, as the def said the original main objection to the twerp was he didn't clean, was that she didn't countersue for damages due to not cleaning.

It's hard enough to live with someone I love and gave birth to; I hope, as poor as I am, I never again have to invite a total stranger to share my living space.  Once, many many years ago, was enough.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

It's hard enough to live with someone I love and gave birth to;

No kidding. It was very hard for me to learn to live with my husband after being on my own for years. I can't imagine some complete stranger in my home. It seems these people renting out rooms want someone who is basically a ghost who is only there to sleep, who has no friends or relatives, doesn't listen to music or TV, who goes to bed at 8p.m. and doesn't breathe too loudly. Just pay part of the rent and otherwise disappear.

31 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I'm surprised, as the def said the original main objection to the twerp was he didn't clean,

I only heard her bitch about dog hair, which could hardly have been a surprise to her.

 

32 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

If the guy had been a gal, would the def have been so quick to file and would the judge have been so willing to grant?

If the defs had been men and the plaintiff a woman? I highly doubt the order would have been granted. If the person is male, even if he's a nerdy, little beta male it seems the restraining orders are automatically granted over stuff like texts demanding money owed. I'd be willing to bet giant def and her girlfriend could have taken the little goof two falls out of three.

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

two case day - started to skip second case, but turned out worth watching

  1. sisters fight over money (P intro not even over and I expecting MM counseling kumbaya moment - oh, and look, P sis brought mom (turns out it'seems a cousin, not mom) and Pops for a little extra family drama): p claims sis borrowed money, then stole another grand - wants  $3224.30.... defendant sis admits sis gave her money when she hit a rough patch, but, don'cha know, it was a gift not a loan - says she didn't steal the thousand in cash, in fact, at first P suspected a brother stole - D sis brought whole stack of papers..... when testimony starts we learn these 2 are half sisters, raised apart, and connected through social medium - P says D sis still lived at home with mom and family (sisters have same dad, different mothers) and was complaining to P about bad family situation (course D sis has a new baby) - seems in past, P as a single mother, moved south from Boston to Florida, and she offers to help her newfound sister, also a single mother) relocate down south where cost of living is so much cheaper..... quick note: p sis may have had rough start in life with whole single mom starting out in life, but she is well spoken and seems to have her 💩 together.... as part of deal, D sis was supposed to pay minimal rent ($200) and she had a job lined up already as a transfer from firm in Massachusetts..... ah, but once D sis shows up P sis learns D not nearly as sweet in person as she was on social media - mayhem erupts when D moves in and, mostly through careless acts, starts trashing P's home/things...... ok, not a good fit - but, so far, not a lawsuit, but instead of getting to the case MM wants to dig into the family drama aspect so, you guessed it, I pick up the remote and zip ahead - quick listen and something about D routinely wanting to wrestle and poke P in butt and twist boobs? Oh, and seems the shared father warned P that D was bad news and not to bring her into the house - zip zip - 'nother quick listen and hear P saying D was sleeping with all P's 24yo son's friends and causing all sorts of drama..... getting tired of P trashing D, so FF to finally hear D's side - oh my, guess since P sis was dissing her she wants to sling mud right back - again, not hearing anything relevant to case, but D wants to tell us all about P getting arrested and charged with grand theft and CC fraud - her story is that reason she decided to move south was because of a fight with her BF, but also to help big sis by lending morale support and - actually, not sure, girl rambling along, fast talking, and not making sense - zip zip - oh, I do catch that she denies sleeping with 'all' her nephews friends, no she says, she only slept with 2 of them. ...... ok, still not sure what the case is supposed to be about, and pretty much over these two - as we go to commercial MM is asking pops to come up, expect she's going into counsel mode and I'm ready to zip to decision - oops, case running long, and when I start listening D going into impassioned explanation of why she stole from dad as a kid because he was such a lousy father, but she would NEVER steal from big sis (P) who she luuuvs so very much - ah, decision time at last - seems I zipped through too much, cuz I never heard where the bulk of the claim came from, but MM heard enough to award P everything except the grand that went missing from her hiding place (her makeup bag on top of the fridge) - P gets $2244.30 (guessing that's the rent and also money from a phone plan) 
  2. tenant after big bucks after eviction: oh my, when P comes into courtroom I'm thinking 50-60s housewife fashion, all she needs is an apron, and Sonny boy in his sweater and tie looks ready for church..... ok, I was ready to skip this, but now I have to watch to figure out what kind of alarm system these folks had that the bill ran up to 4 grand..... oh, and apparently landlord wants to charge for 2 toilet paper holders?...... testimony shows P happily lived in house 2 1/2 years, but D landlord decided not to renew lease as they wanted to move back into house (not hearing anything about an eviction, yet) - when time for deposit to be returned, most was returned - couple items that were withheld are easy with P admitting she owed the money - ah, now the Eviction - seems when D told tenant they wanted to move back in, she started with delay tactics - big kerfuffle when landlord visited and asked her to leave keys on counter, police called, she demanded a walk through but Landlord wasn't ready to deal with her drama, cops advised (according to P) that only way D could force her out was eviction process - uh oh, P ready for her great scene, and launches into a oration about how she has no reason to lie (well except she's suing for 6 grand), I couldn't take her over the top acting when she spoke of D leaving her flowers on valentine's day as they were such great people and so nice to her etc etc....... ok, time for this monstrous alarm bill (p wants $3773 for the alarm system) - ok, seems there was a alarm system in place when she moved into house, and she signed the contract to keep it active - after a time, she decided she no longer wanted it, so stopped paying ghe monthly bills & when she moved out she took the system modules/equipment with her, and the alarm company said hold on, that's our equipment until the contracted period expires, so sent her this ginormous bill - now she wants landlord to pay the bill, when she admits she removed and kept the equipment (even brought it to court today)..... uh, no, if she took over the contract as she admits she did, this is between her and the alarm company...... problem here is that neither side has the actual contract, just bills...... ok, MM ready to go through damages - P suing for double whole deposit even though most was returned - goes down itemized list of amount witheld, and concludes not only are most of the items valid, but that landlord charges are reasonable - only thing MM finds not reasonable is D calling out a locksmith to get into the house after P moved out instead of just calling P and asking for the keys (think MM said there was only about a hundred bucks in dispute - not counting alarm system) - skipping the 4 grand for the alarm, now MM talks about the $500 odd counterclaim - all of which is tit for tat, she sued me so now I'm going to go through place with fine tooth comb just looking for things to charge her for cuz she sued me - silly stuff on both sides like aforementioned toilet paper holders, shelves, curtains, etc...... uh oh, preview as we go to commercial has P getting testy and mouthing off to judge and MM is NOT HAPPY!....... when we come back P tries shouting out and is told "there is no question pending (courtroom talk for STFU!)" As expected, alarm bill between p and alarm company (oh, and P sued for $3700 even though she has settlement offer from alarm company for a thousand less).... sounded like MM wasn't going to let D keep money for locksmith and lock change, but she changes that and says they can - the added on counterclaim nitpicking items MM agrees P either took or replaced sometime during time she lived there - MM isn't giving full replacement cost, so the $500+ gets knocked back to $200 - this is where preview showed P getting mouthy, and MM just talks over P as she dismisses P's case and awards D $200
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

sisters fight over money

I had a hard time dealing with this, so skimmed. I really didn't want details about all the disgusting things ("She stuck her fingers in my butt!" JFC) def - a SSMO2 - did. At first it seemed plaintiff was the injured party, even with her, "Every responsible parent must have an iPhone" nonsense. JM did remind her that parents somehow managed for many centuries without iPhones. What about the irresponsibility of just having babies when you are alone and have no money? Oh, well. I guess that's just fine and dandy. But then we find out that plaintiff was arrested for stealing over 100,000$?? Is that something a "responsible parent" would do? Why JM would consider anything this felon said after that, I don't know. A fine family it is.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

tenant after big bucks after eviction: oh my, when P comes into courtroom I'm thinking 50-60s housewife fashion, all she needs is an apron

"Leave it to Beaver" era housewife with the 1960-style wig. All that was missing was a little string of pearls around her neck. Such righteous indignation from someone who stole the frickin' shower curtain rods. And we got the usual, 'Yes I signed a contract but never read or understood it." I love it when this happens - a plaintiff trying to get a windfall from people who were too nice to her and def. gets the award.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

and MM just talks over P as she dismisses P's case and awards D $200

That was good!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

quick note: p sis may have had rough start in life with whole single mom starting out in life, but she is well spoken and seems to have her 💩 together...

Us single momses ain't all fer shur illiterate...  🙂

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

uh, no, if she took over the contract as she admits she did, this is between her and the alarm company.

I liked how she was just going to go ahead and sign the landlord back up for the security service.  

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

At first it seemed plaintiff was the injured party, even with her, "Every responsible parent must have an iPhone" nonsense.

I honestly didn't think she said her sister needed an iPhone, just a phone.  Burner phones just for emergencies are pretty cheap.  And if you're documented to be poor enough, you can get a basic Obamaphone for free.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

I honestly didn't think she said her sister needed an iPhone, just a phone. 

As if generic phones are good enough for our litigants, even when they're living in their cars. I thought I heard JM ask her if she took it back to the Apple store to see about getting it fixed or trading it but can't be bothered rewatching.

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

Us single momses ain't all fer shur illiterate... 

The ones on this show usually are and not just SSMO either. I was confused because they were so well-spoken as they relayed all kinds of nasty atrocities.

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Us single momses ain't all fer shur illiterate...  🙂

isn't it sad that litigants are noteworthy for being able to be understood without CC and Google to explain the current urban slang.  Heck even when accusing sis of sleeping with all son's friends, P says "sleeping with" rather than converstating, hooking up, talking to, hanging with, etc etc

Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
  1. new patio / bad contractor: P upset when steps on new patio start cracking and contractor won't respond - hired someone else to do repairs - wants original guy to pay 2 grand...... what's this? Defendant side of courtroom is empty and instead MM tells us the defendant's defense is that P is wackadoddle - says he never did work for P and she's suing the wrong contractor..... so, instead of starting out establishing what a crappy job someone did installing P's patio, MM starts out by asking P to describe defendant....... totally bogus to me - I mean what's to say P hasn't seen D when she was trying to get him to respond to her complaints and preparing this case - OTOH, if she starts describing a 70yo black man and the kiddy contractor from the condo bathroom case from the other day walks out I guess that might torpedo P's case...... ok, even better than a description, P has pix of guy who did the work standing on the patio he built - which makes the whole deal of D staying out of courtroom watching by CCTV even more ridiculous...... well, P is certainly seems convinced, but when D finally comes in it ain't the dude in her pic..... soooooo, all we need is for D to prove his identity and case over...... course, to make it better for the audience we'll need to hear all about how P got scammed by some other dude pretending to be D - also means P made up a bunch of her testimony (or D is right and she's a wacko)....... case entertaining, but not really a legal case - have to laugh when D says P called him a thief, and with his accent and mouthful of gappy teeth I hear "teef" instead of thief...... ah, we actually do have a case - because P couldn't accept that she had wrong guy and trashed him online with bad yelp review and harrassed him with numerous calls, texts, and of course this lawsuit (all without bothering to drive by the address she had and seeing if the guy who lived there was who she thought) - all that means D filed a 5 grand countersuit..... yep, P is wackadoddle, D probably does deserve something, but not sure how to pick an amount..... oh my, also appears there was big discussion on P's FB page where D's address, phone#, etc was posted..... hmmmm, wonder if the privacy was set to public (posts seen by anyone) or just friends (only FB friends see the post)..... ok, D wins countersuit, but 5 grand cut to $500, and MM orders P to remove the negative yelp review before she leaves TPC..... I'm thinking she should have to post a retraction, an apology, and then pull the review....... quite the hallterview, P admits she sued wrong guy and offers about the sorriest apology ever - when Doug prompts her, she looks over toward D and says "apologies" and that's it.....   ok, enough time spent on this nonsense - short note from Short Stuff on the street, seems P found and sued the guy who actually did the work (yep, same name as guy today) - she won that case
  2. room rental deposit fight: P says D refuses to return $600 deposit even though P didn't damage anything - claims reason he was given was that he let the dog out (dog found, safely returned, and D brought him to court)....... D says other tenants complained about P - nothing in intro would be legitimate reason for not returning deposit, but of course intro clown has pretty pitiful record when it comes to giving us relevant/truthful facts...... 6 month lease not renewed, but litigants disagree on why - not really pertinent to deposit question, unless there was damage, back rent, or the lease specifies all or part of deposit is non refundable, landlord needs to return deposit (and there's likely a requirement/time limit for return or itemized list of damages/charges)..... D talking about tenant being arrogant and hard to get along with, but I have feeling it's pot calling kettle black situation and arrogant landlord is landlording without knowing tenants landlord rights & responsibilities..... anyway, 1 week before scheduled move out, according to tenant, D tells him he's keeping deposit because P let dog out (apparently rural/country living, D has a bird feeder which is visited by bears, so dude has reason to get upset if tenant was careless and let dog out - but that doesn't mean  loses deposit..... uh huh, now D says there were other issues, including P using electric space heater which was against rules in lease - P agrees he had heater, says hd only used it one night, and D can't disprove that or show any rise in electric bills justifying keeping money... real issue comes back to dog escape,  and unless dog was hurt or there was some monetary loss (maybe posters & paying a reward to find dog) I'm not seeing it..... although, when I was renting a bedroom to a friend,  the closest I ever came to giving him the boot is when he let one of my inside cats out...... ok, for entertainment purposes MM shows us D's security video of bear raiding bird feeder, and another video of dog getting out as P was going out - actually, dude has like 9 videos, including one from another tenant who testifies dog isn't let out unleashed, while dog is seen in same video running around unleashed....... ok, seems dude's monetary claim is because he claims he had to leave work to come home and find dog - uh, nope - but to back up his claim another of the videos is D telling us how much he normally makes, and then his supervisor saying, "yeppers, that's right, he would have made what he says he would have made."........ ah, learning now that deposit was actually $300, but their jurisdiction allows tenant to sue for double when landlord doesn't follow rules..... like so many before him, P is asking for double when there's a dispute on the amount being withheld - D did sent the required itemized list, including, IIRC a $25 late fee one month, $68 for unauthorized space heater, and rest for his missing a couple hours of work...... I'm thinking at most he would get the $25, but not sure we even heard about that til now...... midway through ruling D starts arguing when he doesn't like direction MM is going - she has to tell him to STFU and stop talking over her - yep, late fee not even mentioned in ruling, P wins, but only $300 not double (and, yes, my impression of D being an arrogant a$$hole is confirmed as he continues to argue his case during hallterview)
  3. skipped as soon as intro clown said dog attack ........ almost came back and watched as I heard beginning of case after I left room - if I heard it right, P admits her dog escaped her apartment when she came in, ran outside where D was walking his dogs (on leash) and fight was on - huh? On what planet would that defendant's fault - she wants over $2600 when she admits her dog caused fight where defendant ended up knocked down...... ok, like I said I almost watched, but instead zipped to ruling - MM rules fight 75% P's fault and 25% D's fault, which surprises me, but doesn't make me curious enough to go back and watch...... really just means both owners are clueless..... from hallterview it seems D offered to settle by paying $1000, so even though MM ordered him to pay part of the vet bills, he is actually paying less than he offered
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I, too, was surprised by the verdict in the dog case.  If the other dog had been leashed and under control, the defendant's dogs would most likely not have gone after it.  What many people do not realize is that dogs don't really understand size differences, so if a dog is running at them they don't think "oh, it's a small dog-we're fine" they see a dog that could be attacking them.  And, the plaintiffs dog was over 30 pounds according to her, so not such a small dog.  I thought it was all the plaintiff's fault.

However, I was also surprised my JM's verdict in the case against the wrong contractor.  The plaintiff totally harassed him through numerous calls/texts and on her facebook page.  That fact that she put his name, address, and phone number on her page is unbelievable.  AND she wrote a negative review which could have had a financial impact on him.  I thought that JM laughed it off a bit too much (why didn't you block her earlier?).  I would have given him the entire $5000 as the plaintiff was reckless in her lawsuit-sue the RIGHT person!  However, even $1000 would have sent a stronger message than the $500 that he was awarded.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

have to laugh when D says P called him a thief, and with his accent and mouthful of gappy teeth it is hear "teef" instead of thief

Couldn't she tell when she talked to him on the phone that (likely) he didn't have the same accent as the contractor who worked on her house?

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

ok, D wins countersuit, but 5 grand cut to $500, and MM orders P to remove the negative yelp review before she leaves TPC

 

40 minutes ago, seacliffsal said:

I would have given him the entire $5000 as the plaintiff was reckless in her lawsuit-sue the RIGHT person! 

I agree with you.  She should have had to pay the full freight.  This wasn't an innocent accident; this was someone doxxing the wrong person, trying to ruin his business, and then dragging him to court.  How does MM know -- and somehow she thought it was funny -- that he didn't lose more than $5K in business from her negative reviews?

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

although, when I was renting a bedroom to a friend,  the closest I ever came to giving him the boot is when he let one of my inside cats out

Just another reason among 6000 or so not to have roommates.  We have coyotes out here in the Wild Wild West suburbs.  They've been known to wander by the front door.  Every now and then I read about someone's dog becoming a coyote snack.  Don't want that for my cats, not even the brat cat.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

uh huh, now D says there were other issues, including P using electric space heater which was against rules in lease - P agrees he had heater, says hd only used it one night, and D can't disprove that or show any rise in electric bills justifying keeping money

Usually the objection to a space heater isn't a bump in the electric bill, but the much increased risk of a house fire.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

ok, seems dude's monetary claim is because he claims he had to leave work to come home and find dog

MM asked, but let him slide with a shitty answer, how he just happened to be checking his home video feed while he's supposedly working on the golf course.  I didn't know caddies still made money outside the PGA tour, and certainly not ones who do it for a living.  Maybe that's why he has 73 roommates. 

My house backs onto a golf course, and everyone -- I mean everyone -- drives a golf cart.  No one carries a bag.  It's also a favorite hangout place for the coyotes.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

skipped as soon as intro clown said dog attack

I started to watch, and then DD said, "I thought you didn't like dog stories," so I deleted it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, seacliffsal said:

I, too, was surprised by the verdict in the dog case.  If the other dog had been leashed and under control, the defendant's dogs would most likely not have gone after it.  What many people do not realize is that dogs don't really understand size differences, so if a dog is running at them they don't think "oh, it's a small dog-we're fine" they see a dog that could be attacking them.  And, the plaintiffs dog was over 30 pounds according to her, so not such a small dog.  I thought it was all the plaintiff's fault.

Ok, you already gave me more info than I had since I only heard intro and watched decision. So, smaller dog charging 2 larger dogs being walked by the master and bigger dogs weren't having it? Yeah, that's what dogs do - little ones don't stop and think they might be fighting out of their weight class, and the big guys don't think, hey, little guy can't hurt me, I'll just sit on this yapping pipsqueak.

Sounds like this might be another time where MM views offer to settle as tacit admission of some liability, but I'm not seeing get anything defendant did wrong

Quote

However, I was also surprised my JM's verdict in the case against the wrong contractor.  The plaintiff totally harassed him through numerous calls/texts and on her facebook page.  That fact that she put his name, address, and phone number on her page is unbelievable.  AND she wrote a negative review which could have had a financial impact on him.  I thought that JM laughed it off a bit too much (why didn't you block her earlier?).  I would have given him the entire $5000 as the plaintiff was reckless in her lawsuit-sue the RIGHT person!  However, even $1000 would have sent a stronger message than the $500 that he was awarded.

Totally agree. $500 obviously made no impact on P as she was laughing off dragging wrong guy to court during hallterview. I would have given D more, maybe not 5 grand but enough to sting a little - I wasn't sure from listening to testimony whether it was P or obedience of her FB friends that posted his address and phone#, though she must have posted his name since the friend knew who to google 

Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, SRTouch said:

If the other dog had been leashed and under control, the defendant's dogs would most likely not have gone after it.

The defendant had a bad wrist requiring surgery, meaning he wasn't in enough control of his dogs.  Though the plaintiff's dog was the aggressor and off leash from the outset, defendant, in JM's opinion, was not able to keep them under control by holding onto their leashes, so also his fault.  Defendant seemed very honest and open in admitting this and seemed to believe if not for the plaintiff's dog being loose, this would not have happened, with his wrist not even relevant.  I agree with him and think the defendant was doing fine walking his dogs and think JM is putting too much stock in the defendant's own admission of being injured.  What proof is there the injury was the cause of him losing control of the dogs?

Agree that mistaken contractor defendant should have gotten full $5,000 for having to dealing with the plaintiff's harassment, bad reviews possibly effecting his business, and having to spend time deal with this unwarranted lawsuit.  Ridiculous sometimes when JM blows stuff off.  Understand that winning is the reward for defendants not their being compensated for their time, but that is when we are dealing with the correct defendant; here this defendant was not even involved and the plaintiff was very callous about the whole thing.

 

Edited by Bazinga
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, seacliffsal said:

However, I was also surprised my JM's verdict in the case against the wrong contractor. 

Me too. I thought if ever we had an actual recompensible case of harassment, this was it. Nothing def did or said - including sending her a pic of himself and telling her he's 6'3 and not 5'7" could call off her and her pack of FB harpies. He doesn't even live where her contractor lives. And then she libels him on Yelp, calling him a thief to boot. The relentless witch is just lucky he's such an easy-going, good-tempered guy who didn't retaliate. Had she done this to some other litigants we've seen here it could have gone very badly.

Her smirky, "Apologies!" after Doug in the Hall badgered her into it was worse than no apology. She felt not one iota of remorse or shame. I really hoped he'd get the 5K or at least 2500$. The 500$ was insulting in exchange for her outrageous behavior, IMO. Say what you like about JJ but I'm pretty sure he would have gotten the 5K in her court.

 

15 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I didn't know caddies still made money outside the PGA tour, and certainly not ones who do it for a living.  Maybe that's why he has 73 roommates.

He annoyed me every time he opened his mouth. Maybe this has been mentioned, but it was hilarious when he had one of his many roommates testifying on the video, saying the dog is never running loose in the yard, and right behind him is - guess what? - the dog running loose in the yard. 😄

On 1/8/2020 at 9:45 AM, SRTouch said:

Heck even when accusing sis of sleeping with all son's friends, P says "sleeping with" rather than converstating, hooking up, talking to, hanging with, etc etc

I'll add "messin' and "dealin'" . Anyway, she only messed with two of them, so what's the big deal?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, seacliffsal said:

I, too, was surprised by the verdict in the dog case.  If the other dog had been leashed and under control, the defendant's dogs would most likely not have gone after it.  What many people do not realize is that dogs don't really understand size differences, so if a dog is running at them they don't think "oh, it's a small dog-we're fine" they see a dog that could be attacking them.  And, the plaintiffs dog was over 30 pounds according to her, so not such a small dog.  I thought it was all the plaintiff's fault.

However, I was also surprised my JM's verdict in the case against the wrong contractor.  The plaintiff totally harassed him through numerous calls/texts and on her facebook page.  That fact that she put his name, address, and phone number on her page is unbelievable.  AND she wrote a negative review which could have had a financial impact on him.  I thought that JM laughed it off a bit too much (why didn't you block her earlier?).  I would have given him the entire $5000 as the plaintiff was reckless in her lawsuit-sue the RIGHT person!  However, even $1000 would have sent a stronger message than the $500 that he was awarded.

I completely agree.  The plaintiff was using information she got from someone on Facebook for Chrissake!  I could - ALMOST - understand if she had engaged a private investigation service and they had given her incorrect information.  But this is some twatwaffle on Facebook.  You don't dox and bash an individual on social media because Paula from Newport did a Google search.  

He deserved $5,000 for the crap she put him through.  She did not perform due diligence and it should cost her.  

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, seacliffsal said:

I would have given him the entire $5000 as the plaintiff was reckless in her lawsuit-sue the RIGHT person! 

I agree, that woman was appallingly negligent and damaged the defendant. JM treated her as sort of cute when she made this itty bitty mistake.  What really hit me was when she was asked if she wanted to apologize, she smirked and turned to the plaintiff and said "apologize", not "I apologize, I am sorry for this mistake, what I did was wrong". Just one word delivered with a facial expression that made her actual feelings clear.  JM has come down hard on stalkers and harassers (justifiably) especially if they are men harassing women but in this case, she shrugged it off as just a little booboo.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

I agree, that woman was appallingly negligent and damaged the defendant. JM treated her as sort of cute when she made this itty bitty mistake.  What really hit me was when she was asked if she wanted to apologize, she smirked and turned to the plaintiff and said "apologize", not "I apologize, I am sorry for this mistake, what I did was wrong". Just one word delivered with a facial expression that made her actual feelings clear.  JM has come down hard on stalkers and harassers (justifiably) especially if they are men harassing women but in this case, she shrugged it off as just a little booboo.

Yeah, what is that with her these days.  I'm sure the man didn't find her obsessive actions and smears of his character charming or cute in the least.  He deserved every cent of that $5,000 he asked for.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/7/2020 at 5:16 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I had a hard time dealing with this, so skimmed. I really didn't want details about all the disgusting things ("She stuck her fingers in my butt!" JFC) def - a SSMO2 - did.

 

I must respond.

The skeevy defendant said that everyone in her hood (Massachusetts) does this disgusting gesture as well as grab women's breasts...

Not from Massachusetts but have lived/worker here for a tad over 20 years.  Never, ever has anyone attempted to stick their finger in my butt or grab my breasts per customs of the people of Massachusetts.

This coming from a slug defending her virginal honor "I did not sleep with all my nephew's friends..just two of them".

This is the kind of defense I expect to hear in my office with the door closed and after several meetings with the client.  Not on national television and certainly not presented with the bravado she exhibited.

Color me perplexed.

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
  1. landlord wants money for rent and neglect to house: P says he was letting tenants slide on rent until he spotted them in pix living large at a $300/night resort - suing for $4999...... Ds say place was a dump when they moved in so don't think they should pay any rent....... from intro, I'm getting vibe this was a losey-goose type deal with nothing in writing and no clear meeting of the minds - type deal where P was letting tenants live there and work off some rent doing needed repairs, and tenants weren't doing as much as he expected - D can't live in house for free, but expect P has inflated the claim and wants money for pre-existing damage....... ok, litigants work at some state agency together - D hubby needs kidney transplant and needs someplace to live close to the out of town hospital while undergoing dialysis and pre/post transplant operation, P happens to own empty house in near hospital, (house inherited from dad and has been empty for awhile) so, he offers to let D stay in house in exchange for sweat equity of caring for house - good deal for everybody..... as expected, no  meeting of minds - P says he expected minimum rent to cover taxes, insurance, etc and all utilities (maybe $500/month), plus maintaining house in good repair - D says all they expected was to pay their own utilities (hate it when she says P told her not to worry about paying rent so, I guess out of goodness of her heart, she offered to pay utilities)...... really not liking defendant couple's attitude here - their only prove of how rundown/neglected property was is a short video of torrential downpour with gutters overflowing - and oh look at all the leaves..... geez, what I'm seeing is a Florida downpour, fairly well maintained yard with some leaves in flowerbed (which I thought was pea gravel or mulch until D says it leaves) (to be far, in hallterview D complains she had more pix but didn't get to show them)..... welllll, my impression right now, P was being a good guy, and D acting like entitled freeloaders taking advantage - nothing in writing, but almost immediately, like first month, P says he sent a text reminding D that he expects them to cover expenses, which normally run $500/month and hasn't received anything - his problem he was too nice, let them slide month after month, just collecting money for utilities, up until he saw the pix on social media.... again, we hear D say all she thought they should pay was the electric bill - then she admits that wasn't paid last two months..... now MM starts going through list of damages he wants to be paid for - seems D refused 3 dogs to keep him company - I get that, but P says they did some damage (some lousy after pictures which show damage but who knows when damage occurred) - ok, without something in writing, and no real proof D damaged anything, MM says the only thing she sees that D didn't pay for that she admits she should have is the $330 P paid for cleanup after D left - ok, sometime in May things got contentious with P demanding $500 a month, and he sends snippy text suggesting they get out of his house and get a room at the 'Y' - but D still there into July...... ok, even if first few months were not clear and D thought they were freeloading guests, as of May they were put on notice that P considered them tenants and expected  $500/month...... there's also disagreement over the security system - D knew there were cameras, but says they didn't know they were working and that P could watch their comings and goings - seems when they started fussing back and forth P  asks why D hubby was sitting 'butt naked' on the couch, and when D asks WTH?!? P replies he has video recording..... uh, no, cameras watching entry points may be okay, but not cool to brag about recordings in living areas - and MM lets him know that ain't cool...... ah, seems invasion of privacy really got her hot - she says she was ready to break out the calculator and do rough justice figuring out what D should owe, but now she's ready to send P home with nada....... yep, MM claims it's a wash - D should have owed something, but privacy issue wipes slate..... ah, and apparently MM thinks reason P got so huffy was because he was expecting D to have his back in some work related HR issue (she is a supervisor in HR) - and she didn't have his back at work...... ok, as often happens, my opinion of litigant, this time P, has gone downhill as case goes on - and my opinion of P really nosedive with his texts - not sure, but didn't he introduce those texts?
  2. non-pament for services: p says she worked on D's sailboat and he refuses to pay - suing for $1931.01..... D agrees she did the work, but disagrees with amount - yeppers, 'nother no meeting of minds case - this time D was restoring a sailboat to use for charity, and says he was looking for volunteers to help in restoration project - says P agreed to do work without charging for labor (parts supposed to run about $400), so says her $1900 bill shocked him - claims he contacted her and reminded her she was supposed to be donating labor, and next thing he knew he was served with lawsuit...... ok, I know very little about boats, even less about sailboats, so found this kind of interesting  (also interesting that little silver haired lady is one of few female sail riggers around - an icon in area according to D)...... liking P, but don't think much of her case. She admits there was no set price - I believe her when she says she's done a few jobs for D over the years and that she told him what this job would normally cost, but by her own testimony she knew this time was for charity and they didn't set a price - I can see where both sides are coming from - without hearing anything else, I say least P should get is her proven out of pocket expenses - she admits she gave him a verbal guesstimate of around $1000 plus parts, so wonder why she's suing for two grand. ...... hmmmm when asked she says parts ran over $700, but, alas, no receipts - but trust her she knows what she bought/spent - oh, and she says she gave him a 10% discount..... as usual, likely P less as we go along - not helped when she goes on about how she kept calling D about the bill and how he promised to pay, but she has nothing in writing or text and intro has D saying she sent 1 bill followed by a lawsuit..... time to switch sides - D starts out singing the P's praises, but then talks about his surprise at receiving the bill - yep, repeats bit about how P was going to donate labor..... ok, no these folks have nothing in writing, no texts, etc. - don't think either side is lying, but, like I said, no clear cut deal - can easily believe P estimated parts at $400 but ended up using $700 worth - believe P probably told D job normally ran around a grand and forgot to add 'plus parts,' because as she was telling MM what it cost I first thought it was a grand - I'd split the bill,  and award P a grand - she's the professional, but D can't expect her to donate time and parts without something in writing, text, or a witness (like maybe one of the other 5 owners of the boat)..... ah, last minute evidence from P casting doubt on D's charitable gesture - when dispute arose over payment P contacted the charity, and their reply is D isn't part of their charity - he tells MM that he and his 5 co-owners plan their own offer boat to charity once it's fixed up - ah, but why should P write off a grand of her money for the boat now because maybe the boat will be used for charity sometime in the future? One of these two are liar liars and I think there's smoke coming from D's pants - I'm upping my award and going to say give P $1400 - her original estimate of $400 for parts and $1000 for labor..... MM takes it a step further and gives P what she asked for - $1939, yeah, more importantly think about it more I'm not liking D's testimony
  3. Bad used car sale: P claims she bought car from D's lot and it failed inspection - she wants the the $1631.84 estimated cost of repairs...... D says car passed inspection prior to the sale, so isn't sure WTH P is going on about - intro says there has already been a DMV investigation which cleared his business....ummm is that something DMV would investigate, or is this intro clown spouting nonsense - anyway, if P can prove D sold a lemon I might rewind the sale, or maybe give him a chance to fix it, maybe even have him reimburse her for repairs she's paid for (assuming a warranty exists), but not going to order him too pay an estimated cost even with a warranty...... ah, but preview clip hints dealer may have altered paperwork (dude, if you're going to mess with paperwork, at least use same color of ink)..... ok, keeping with normal court tv standards, we're talking a 14yo volkswagen Passat..... now, thing about different color ink, seems when P bought car a problem was identified and dealer promised to fix it no charge - well, part ordered, wrong part arrived, etc and months go by, says repair never made - D says repair done, and presents the questionable work invoice..... sooooo, what we have here is, while not a warranty, there was agreement when car was sold dealer promised a repair which may or may not have been made, and when dealer presents questionable evidence he gets smart with MM (tells judge his evidence was good enough for DMV which does not impress Her Honor 1 tiny little bit).... ok, P says she ended up taking car to actual volkswagen dealer to get window fixed (after date of  D's questionable repair invoice) and volkswagen found all this other stuff wrong - yeah, lots of dealers do that, where maintenance shop is encouraged to upsell - go in for lube job and they recommend air filter, wiper blades, etc etc...... ah ha, piling on the questionable invoice, invoice still has her temporary plate number and by date on the invoice she had the permanent plates.... oh my, still not going to say dealer has to pay estimated cost, but dude is losing big time as MM just keeps catching him in lies - geez, give it up dude, even your proof that car passed inspection before the sale has been doctored..... ok, changing my mind, only thing straight about defendant is part in his greasy hair - give P everything she wants....... ah, but we know MM is more about sticking to what's legal even when she'd really like to spank litigants - even with repeated lies, I expect she'll end up forcing D to pay for window and then rule against rest because this was an As-is sale - yep, she awards P $825 for window ...... it's ok, though, from her reaction I don't think P ever expected to get more - and she thoroughly enjoyed MM shaming defendant on national tv
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size