Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Lillybee

The People's Court

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, aemom said:

Sometimes she rakes people over the coals when they answer "I have the proof, just not here with me right now," and other times she gives them time to find the proof and present it later.

I was wondering about that. I think it may also depend on if she gets the feeling the person is just dumb or is trying to pull a fast one. I don't think she ever gives a second chance to someone who conveniently just changed their phone or dropped it in the toilet before their appearance here, so - darn it! - all their text evidence is gone.

1 hour ago, aemom said:

It's unbelievable how many of these women we see on this show.  Which makes me wonder how many others are out there that are even more stupid that we just don't see?

I'm sure the number is staggering. The women on this show are amateurs compared to some. I just heard the story of one woman who sent 600,000$ (yes, six hundred thousand) to Nigeria to some person she'd never met. She was in love with words on a computer screen and she trusted him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

  1. bought a bad dog?: an as-is sale of the canine variety. P says he bought dog advertised as well trained, and it isn't - wants judge to undo deal and give him his money back - asking $700..... seller says he wanted a 'guard' dog after he was robbed - after a week wanted his money back....... all kinds of stuff wrong with these 2 - on P side, dogs are not emotionless robots - the best behaved dog for one handler may well be an out if control disaster with another, and besides, where do you find a well trained guard dog that costs $700....... anyway, may not be about physical animal abuse, but suspect this one will cause me some heartburn and tv may not be safe from thrown objects - I watch long enough to hear we're talking about an 11month old cane corso puppy - D says she sold her personal dog because P 'kept asking' for the dog - yeah, she tells the judge, dude asked 3 times....... ok, heard about enough, I zip ahead - good thing is this case is over early
  2. car repo case: p says repo man stole $900 in cash she had in glove box when he took her car, and she missed 4 days work cuz of not having car - hoboy, she wants 5 grand (preview has MM ask what she does at the post office that she figures she should get $1000 a day for missed work - $4100 for 4 days)...... D says car inventoried when repo-ed and there was no cash - says P called cops to accuse him of stealing imaginary cash, but cops left without writing a report - filed countersuit for $175 in unpaid fees........ uh oh, first case really spoiled today's viewing for me, as I have little patience for P's nonsense here -  see if you follow her logic here - if you can 'splain it to me - car repo ed because she's 2 months behind on payments, but she earns a grand a day - she explains the grand a day by saying it's not just the post office job, she works 2 jobs - but spoils that by now saying she missed 3 or 4 days work..... so rather than calling a cab or Uber she doesn't go to work and sues the repo man cuz the bank paid him to repo her car - ah, later she changes it to the $4100 not just wages, but the heartache/distress of having car repo-ed - yeah, maybe if you pay your bills your ride would be in the driveway when you're ready for work...... not to sure about repo guy, either, as he sounds like he was driving around, saw her car, scanned and towed it - hope he means he had a list of delinquent cars and scanned it to double check and wasn't just cruising checking random cars - also, one of those litigants who showed up with a witness and neither are person who towed the car - nah, he says, driver who made tow is 'unavailable'...... sometimes I wish judge would just arbitrarily rule everything litigant testifies about the case is hearsay...... ah, D testifies car towed without opening car, and witness is person who inventoried car after it was opened back at the lot..... have to say, witness D brought actually proves way better than I expected and helpful to case - definitely better than actual D...... ok, P has no case, but MM lets her yak away and even brings up her bf to add his 2 cents.... funny when P says D witness isn't person she dealt with and MM answers, yes she is, I even have the conversation on  video....... yep, we get to watch the video (twice)..... wow, not sure how, but MM has managed to drag this non-case out and we're back on schedule after short 1st case..... case and countersuit dismissed
  3. wants back rental deposit: not your typical changed mind tenant who wants refund - this tenant says she put down the deposit, and then landlord kept pushing back move in because previous tenants delayed leaving - wants $4404.60 for the deposit and 11 months worth of storage fees...... D claim it was P who delayed move in after she had car accident........ not your regular landlord tenant relationship - met through pastor, landlord looking for short term tenants as she wanted to go be with son during his chemo treatments, according to P it was landlord who delayed moving out so she could move in, MM asks P why she didn't just look for different place, but she seems to think they had a 'bond'...... huh? thought she claimed delay was supposed to be a couple weeks, but now I'm hearing she was originally to move in in Oct and she didn't put down a deposit until April - could it have been that she wasn't in a big hurry because she moved into Auntie's house? Was she maybe living there rent free? And, what was D doing about son's chemo all this time.... and another thing, when she finally puts down a deposit it's  $2,000, so why is she suing for twice that?.... anyway, in April when deposit made move in date was supposed to be May 1st - not sure why D thinks they can keep the deposit - says they were ready to give P house May 1st, but almost before words are out of her mouth she's admitting she never actually moved out so P could move in, something about changes in son's treatment which has nothing to do with tenant....... now D saying reason she didn't return deposit is that hubby spent the money - oh dear, hubby blew the money at the strip club? - ok, female audience gasps but I see a few of the males smiling really big - time for a lecture MM and me to reach for remote...... ok, not tenant's problem, she gets back deposit - but I sure wouldn't give her double...... MM starts working numbers - she agrees to give P some storage costs, but only from the May move in date after deposit made in April, not backdated to Oct - ends up 4 months of storage fees since P didn't not have the 2 grand deposit back available to put towards new apartment...... so, P gets $2800
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, SRTouch said:

P another litigant who fails to impress in hallterview

My favorite part was when he said he's now going to sue the seller of the house for putting him in this position in the first place. Good luck with that.  

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

wants back rental deposit: not your typical changed mind tenant who wants refund - this tenant says she put down the deposit, and then landlord kept pushing back move in because previous tenants delayed leaving - wants $4404.60 for the deposit and 11 months worth of storage fees...

Who else wanted to bitch slap the sad sack husband who spent $2K on strippers.  He whined how he had trauma and issues and problems earlier in his life that led him to go to the club and make it rain the plaintiffs money on some dancers.  Then he mush-mouthed that he didn't pay back a dime because he's not working,  Boohoo loser.  

It's tragic that he had a child battling cancer, but he could have found another outlet for his stress and grief.   His wife gave herself away in the hall with Doug - I saw her rubbing his arm consolingly like "my poor widdle man".  Ugh, another woman who will put up with a bunch of crap just to have a warm male nearby.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Plaintiff called JM Miss and it went uncommented upon when sometimes she acts offended or totally outraged. 

I didn't get to see that, but I recall once or twice someone slipped in a "Miss" while she was talking and she didn't hear it.

17 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Imagine how JM would react if the races had been reversed. 

I don't have to imagine. The anger would roll off her in such violent waves it would flatten the litigant.

17 hours ago, Bazinga said:

JM has a standing bias against tow companies.

It seems that way. I remember the worst example, when she told the tow guy, in essence, "Yes, you are honest, you work hard and earn a living. I know you followed the law to a "T", but crushing the car of this despicable career criminal with 40 felonies and 20 aliases under his belt and who was back in prison when you crushed his car? That was brutal!"

In other news, slimy Levin is back in hot water for being unable to control himself because he wanted to be Mr. BigShot and announce the Kobe Bryant crash. He says Bryant's "people" okayed it, but as Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva said, there were eight other people who died in that crash, and their families had to learn about the loss of their loved ones through a shlocky, sleazy, big-mouthed nothing like Levin? Oops, he never thought of that. Why would he? He's an amoral, crass, little POS without a shred of integrity or humanity. Other peoples' tragedies are just slop for his trough.

The words of Alec Baldwin were never truer: “He is a festering boil on the anus of American media.”

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

a case that was rerun recently in which JM went off on an African-American defendant who used a stereotypical slur (starting with a "J") when referring to how the plaintiff had talked her into reducing a price.

She didn't go off, though.  JM tried to correct the defendant, who only barely understood why she was wrong.  Once the defendant seemed to understand her "mistake", JM backed off.  She definitely did not rip into the defendant; just pointed out what she was saying as being wrong.  Defendant eventually acknowledged the wrong somewhat and nothing more was made of it.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

4 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

She didn't go off, though.  

One of Merriam-Webster's definitions of "went off":

"to burst forth or break out suddenly or noisily"

 

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Bazinga said:

The female defendant in case 3 was not that beautiful the way JM was carrying on about her looks and how uneven the relationship was based on looks.

MM may have been overcompensating just to further villify the husband for stupidly wasting money on strippers, because the wife did look very life-worn, although not as much as her beau (of 30 or 35 years as she mentioned). Perhaps she was mesmerised by the big boobies.

The wife was a hypocrite: she said it was the right thing to give back the money, but she made no move to do so, relying on her sob story as an excuse; those were sad circumstances, but not sufficient to justify depriving the young woman of her cash. The latter was very silly for trusting the "bond" she felt with the defendants, but she did not deserve to be treated that way.

18 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Then JM blows off the $175 in fees countersuit for no other reason beyond her never having heard of it before and not thinking plaintiff should have to pay. 

I thought this was a perfectly reasonable processing fee for going through the junk drivers leave behind in their car; it takes time and resources to inventory the stuff and produce the necessary records. As you say MM let her frequent anti-towing companies prejudice get in the way.

And as others have said, she most often lowers the boom of litigants who use homophobic, racist or anti-semitic (often as a matter of course like the recent "jewed down the price", which is an indication it is a natural part of their conversation), but she usually lets pass comments that target white people, like the one in this case. And as @Bazinga pointed out while I was writing this, she was a bit soft with regards to the anti-semitic word.

Perhaps she decided to go easy on the plaintiffs because she felt sorry for them for having to share less than half a brain together and both being unable to make it work properly.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

Just heads up -  'nother trip to doctor today so recap late or not at all

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Just heads up -  'nother trip to doctor today so recap late or not at all

Late please 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

One of Merriam-Webster's definitions of "went off":

"to burst forth or break out suddenly or noisily"

Not sure what point you were making here; if I was being corrected or not.

go off

Definition #3: informal

become suddenly angry; lose one's temper.

"if you got in an argument with him, he'd just go off"

Works for me to fit my meaning. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

First case today: audio analyst versus music guy. Interesting and a bit different from most cases. What was really unfortunate was when the defendant claimed that the plaintiff posted racist stuff on facebook, then the plaintiff explained that he quoted one of his favorite scenes from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the one where they approach the French castle and the french defender says "I fart in your general direction", followed by a humorous mispronunciation of the word "knight" as ka-nit (the same joke as Benny Hill constantly pronouncing knickers as ki-nickers. This is what the defendant cited as proof of racism. JM looked blank, too bad someone didn't slip her a note explaining this.

ETA: The plaintiff also didn't get the "k-night" joke, that sort of surprised me. Maybe he should watch the movie again.

Edited by DoctorK
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you, DoctorK.

I, unlike the defendant claiming racism, actually Googled the quote and found out the meaning of a word I didn't know. 

Here it is: 

French Knight: You don’t frighten us, English pig dogs! Go and boil your bottoms, you sons of a silly person! I blow my nose at you, so-called “Arthur King,” you and all your silly English K-n-i-g-g-i-t-s.

And, as DoctorK wrote, the word means knight.  Took seconds.  Guess it was easier to take racial offense.

The plaintiff had to know the meaning if he considers this his favorite quote.  Why wouldn't he come out and say it instead of allowing the claim of racism to linger?

 

Edited by Bazinga
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

In other news, slimy Levin is back in hot water for being unable to control himself because he wanted to be Mr. BigShot and announce the Kobe Bryant crash. He says Bryant's "people" okayed it, but as Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva said, there were eight other people who died in that crash, and their families had to learn about the loss of their loved ones through a shlocky, sleazy, big-mouthed nothing like Levin? Oops, he never thought of that. Why would he? He's an amoral, crass, little POS without a shred of integrity or humanity. Other peoples' tragedies are just slop for his trough.

The words of Alec Baldwin were never truer: “He is a festering boil on the anus of American media.”

I saw that! However anyone feels about the late Mr. Bryant, it's nauseating that Levin used those deaths for his own purposes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

it's nauseating that Levin used those deaths for his own purposes.

There is nothing he wouldn't use for his scummy tabloid crap. Nauseating, but most of what comes his big, loose, flappy pie hole nauseates me. From him nearly derailing the OJ case, to texting and driving to this latest atrocity, there are no depths to which he will not stoop. I can't help hoping he has some personal tragedy - if indeed anything could touch that slug -  and someone blares it out to the world in this sleazy way. You have to wonder what his boyfriend sees in someone so repugnant, besides dollar signs. He's such an insect and I mean no offense to actual insects except maybe cockroaches.

7 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Oh . . . and step away from the botox, Harvey.  You look as unnatural as most people do when they try to plump out their wrinkles.

But he thinks he looks great which is clearly demonstrated by the way he constantly shoves his ugly mug into the camera as he's "conversating" with his dim-witted fan club on the street. "Gotcher point!" Fuck you, Levin.

BTW, thanks to all who are recapping. I don't know when I'll ever get to see the show again. ☹️

 

 

 

 

 

harvey-levin.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, DoctorK said:

First case today: audio analyst versus music guy. Interesting and a bit different from most cases.

However MM's examination was rather rambling and thus she missed what seemed to be the main point of their initial dispute: defendant did not understand that the work done by plaintiff was an assessment of what needed to be done and if it was possible to get any results in the end. It was not the full analysis which would have cost extra. He was probably ignorant of what it really costs to have such specialised and involved technical work done. He said as much when he stated that you could recognise his voice in the overall mix by only listening to the recording.

18 hours ago, Bazinga said:

The plaintiff had to know the meaning if he considers this his favorite quote.  Why wouldn't he come out and say it instead of allowing the claim of racism to linger?

I thought that perhaps he believed that MM got the joke; it's also possible that she moved on too quickly for an explanation to take place and even that he does not understand it himself.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

thought that perhaps he believed that MM got the joke; it's also possible that she moved on too quickly for an explanation to take place and even that he does not understand it himself.

JM directly asked him what the word meant and he said you would have to ask Monty Python.  No, sir, you have to know the answer, so say it.  I thought he was embarrassed, as, out of context, it sounds stupid or nerdy.  Just hated that defendant's ignorance coupled with the plaintiff not explaining, allowed the plaintiff to seem racist, when the quote was not racial at all; was not some form of the n word, which is what the defendant was thinking.  

Edited by Bazinga
  • Like 1
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

JM directly asked him what the word meant and he said you would have to ask Monty Python.

I forgot that part. He did seem like a nerd who does not understand fully what he quotes. Maybe was attracted to that Monty Python exchange because of the opening lines, which he seemed to especially relish, and considered the word in question to be a nonsensical invented one, without ever checking further.

Or he was embarrased to fully display in public his knowledge of such trivia.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

BTW, thanks to all who are recapping. I don't know when I'll ever get to see the show again. ☹️

Maybe I missed it, but why can't you see the show?

I haven't seen it all week because, frankly, it's exhausting to watch and sometimes I just don't have the energy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
  1. Costume designer suing for payment: P designed an elaborate Brazilian carnival costume for contest D entered and won - problem is that he says D forgot to pay - wants $800...... D appears to be claiming P failed to deliver on time, and costume was incomplete, so D had to pay extra for delivery and complete the costume on his own...... apparently this is a big time annual event in Pennsylvania, P designs/rents costumes every year, D found P through FB, rented the costume, and ended up winning contest which includes $1400 cash prize...... at first P seems to say they had a written contract, but ends up with MM going through texts  - weellllll, no meeting of minds here, in fact they don't even agree on whether this was a rental or a purchase - seems they agree charge was  $1200, but P says rental and D says he was buying costume...... easy to see why there may be confusion, P has very strong accent and his answers to MM are back and forth as he either doesn't understand or his answers are unclear - actually both litigants have heavy accents, so maybe they have a common language and it's just English where P isn't clear....... ok, during process of designing costume they bonded, and P ends up letting D take costume to contest without being paid in full...... anyway, wishy washy verbal contract amended throughout their relationship so who knows what the heck their deal was - now P saying, yeah, deal changed to where D was going to do some of work, but who knows how much, if any, offset there was to the $1200 price........ ok, now MM is asking D questions - I hoped he'd be easier to understand, but no, if anything I'm having more trouble as he seems to just brush past questions and continue with what he wants to say....... one of those cases where I really have no idea - both sides agree original deal was $1200, but not whether that was for rental or purchase - not to forget original $1200 should be offset as everyone agrees D ended up with incomplete costume that he had to modify/complete - apparently P has partial payment and ended up with costume (including modifications paid for by D) and is renting it out - P promised he had texts, but unable to produce what he promised - but wait, at last minute he finds something proving D promised to complete paying the full $1200 (additional 800) and it sure sounds like D knew it was a rental as he returns costume when it's been re-rented....... ok, text exchange gives nod to P, but not sure if there should be an offset as everyone agreed D paid for modifications...... ah well, as MM reads several texts written after contest, D repeatedly promises to complete payment and never mentions an offset or that he thought he had purchased - not rented - costume...... P gets his $800, advise to start writing down his agreements, and is ordered to return bodysuit portion of costume which both agree D added to costume
  2. pool service fail: p says fumbling pool service delayed opening pool for summer and she deserves a refund of $1000..... D argues p waited too long before hiring his service, he does several pools in neighnorhood and was going down list, by time he got to her place she had gotten impatient and fired him before he finished...... uh, yeah, I ran into customers like that a few times when I was doing landscaping - want immediate service even if it means jumping to the head line........ when P starts explaining hefty case sounds like she's proving D's case for him - her normal pool guy was unavailable due to medical issues,  she spots D service's van next door, follows van and gets him to agree to do her pool. ..... ok, not liking P and tune her out as she spins her tail...... over to D and not liking this joker either - thing was she just wanted pool opened for summer, and he offered complete acid wash/reconditioning for a couple grand instead of $3-400..... huh, guy has said maybe 3 sentences and I've already decided I wouldn't hire him while P sounds like she shopped around and had good idea what the heck she wanted, so why'd she hire him and apparently give him $1000 deposit...... hmmmmm D telling us all the stuff he had to go through and sounding convincing, have to wonder if P's regular pool guy had not been doing job right for some time 'cuz sounds like maintenance had been neglected for quite a while, and not just over the winter..... d's witness comes up and backs him  up about how big a disaster job was....... gotta say D and his witness sound believable - my problem is I really have never dealt with pool maintenance so aren't sure if prices/services are inflated...... oh, and this whole time P is raising her hand and waving her phone until MM finally tells her to put her hand down until it's her turn...... actually, not long before MM is telling both sides to STFU - MM has more experience than I do with pools, and she spots a couple things in pool guy's story which don't make sense to her - P rambling on and trying to bull doze MM with hearsay testimony from original pool guy, but I'm starting to get a headache listening to her....... ok, MM thinks this hearsay evidence could win case for P, so takes a recess to allow P to get actual evidence....... total failure of P to get her needed evidence during recess - and she mouths off when MM tells us most judges wouldn't bother taking a recess for litigant to gather evidence they should have brought to court in first place..... since MM spotted inconsistencies in pool guy's testimony she slaps his hand a bit, ordering a $100 refund of the $1000 he was paid, but that's all P gets...... 
  3. roommate fail: odd couple acquaintances sign a lease to share an apartment - not long, 3 days, til D decides to split, and P wants $834.40...... D says it was impossible to live with P - claims P is a slob bordering on being a hoarder - says despite leaving almost immediately, she paid 2 months rent......... ok, both signed lease,  so, assuming D paid 2 months rent, question is what efforts P made to mitigate by finding another roomie....... uhoh, P playing clueless little girl, doesn't know how much security was put down - oh well, D doesn't know, either...... expect some motherly counseling from MM for these 19 & 20yo babies........ ok, zipping ahead I see P awarded about half what she asked for...... for now, have an eye Dr appointment, so have to come back for ins and outs......
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Maybe I missed it, but why can't you see the show?

I haven't seen it all week because, frankly, it's exhausting to watch and sometimes I just don't have the energy.

The impeachment hearings. Every day, partially or totally pre-empting my court shows. ☹️

  • Useful 2
  • Sad 4

Share this post


Link to post

Watching the third case today makes me so glad I am not young anymore. The plaintiff just annoyed the *#!@ out of me. I know she is only 19, but still. First off, why does it seem like most young girls have to talk a mile a minute and hardly pause for breath? This girl started out at about 60 MPH talking. I know she's nervous and all, but it seems a trait you see quite often in younger girls.

Second (and this is one of my many pet peeves), why does every sentence have to start with "So"? I see more and more younger people doing this. Why not just go ahead and say what you are going to say? Why preface it with the word so? I guess cuz everyone else is doing it too!

Third (another pet peeve) why does every sentence end like a question? I believe it is called uptalk. I makes me think of the way a Valley girl would speak. Not good!!

All that being said, she does seem like a pretty responsible young woman. She seems to have a good solid father figure (her Dad) and isn't even afraid to go to court. So, hopefully she will grow out of the annoying traits of young people. *Sigh* I guess I am getting old and crotchety. (Excuse me a moment) *hollers* "Hey you kids, get off my lawn!" Ahem, now where was I?

 

First case. With a costume designer and a cross dresser involved, I sure figured there would be more attitude and 'sass' thrown around than there was. Boy, the defendant sure lit up when MM complimented him on looking good in the outfit though. Giggled like a little school girl!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, and how about Doug in the hallway after the third case. BRUTAL!! He asked the defendant if she was embarrassed to be sued in court. She said no, not really. Then he said "Well, you should be!" I love Doug so much. He can say just about anything and get away with it because of his laid back gentle attitude. SOOOO much better than old what's his name? Kurt, I think. The guy who still does the intro voiceovers. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/28/2020 at 2:37 PM, SRTouch said:

 

2. car repair suit: p needed to replace engine in her car, so hauled it and replacement engine to defendant's shop - car has been there for a year now, and claim he ignores their calls - want 10 grand....... D says he told P engine she brought was no good and he needed $500 to order replacement replacement engine but P never paid - after 6 months he placed a lien on car...... guess you can buy you anything off eBay, this lady apparently bought her replacement engine - anyway, D installed replacement only to learn it was a dud....... ah, 'nother faulty memory case, along with excitable p having trouble getting story straight - MM turns to D and isn't happy with way he starts his answer...... ah, the ever popular 'it's in my phone, but I no longer have that phone' line when he tells us how repeatedly tried to call and contact P..... hmmmm as I understood excitable P he actually went to their house to deliver bad news that first replacement was a dud, which casts doubt on how hard he was trying to contact P - oh, and I bet part of MM's feelings against D might stem from her known preference towards young girls who bring out her mommy feelings...... ok, whole lien seems questionable, as MM establishes basis of lien was storage fees without prior notice to P that she would be paying fees...... uh, strike two - first ''old phone" line now bogus lien..... more dude talks less I think of him - and he wasn't very high up to begin with....... couple more strikes (must have been a foul tip in there somewhere) dude took shortcuts in following lien laws and junked car prematurely - oh, and made instagram post calling P daughter a crackhead and calling case a joke...... P has vastly overestimated value of clunker, but with premature junkies of car sounds like she'll get something...... yep, MM awards P $2300 - and shuts down D when he tries to interrupt her ruling...... my opinion of D sinks even lower during hallterview

 

OK, this really bothers me and scares me. Do you think MM would get away with that in real court? Do you think she DID get away with that in real court? My guess is probably not as openly as here, but I would say it most definitely influenced her decisions when she was a "real" judge. There is NO CALL whatsoever to let sympathy for a litigant or disdain for a litigant based on gender, age, race, political affiliation, religion, attractiveness, ect. color the way the judge treats the litigant as far as receiving justice. 

It makes me scared to think of how many cases were unfairly ruled on by her because of her personal biases/feelings. It also makes me terrified to think of how many judges on a daily basis throughout America let their biases/feelings determine the outcome of a case.

I know locally here where I live, everyone hates our judges because they keep letting criminals back out time and time again only to be re-arrested for the same or similar crimes and then let out again (an on and on). The judges liberal bias is putting all law abiding citizens here at risk, and many times some innocent will pay for it with their life.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, Bdrums1971 said:

MM complimented him on looking good in the outfit though. Giggled like a little school girl!

I think she said "You looked beautiful." Spends 1200$ to win 1000$. I guess it's just a point of pride and recognition of his beauty. Did we really need the giant show-and-tell?

2 hours ago, Bdrums1971 said:

Second (and this is one of my many pet peeves), why does every sentence have to start with "So"? I see more and more younger people doing this.

So, yeah - I know. I like to watch the British Dragons Den, and even the presenters there who are trying to be very professional to get major investment in their businesses do this! "What was your turnover last year?" "So...." At least they don't insert a "like" before, like, every word they, like, say.

Nineteen-year-old rental girl, who wanted to live with someone "older and more responsible" chooses the dippy def, who is all of twenty. Def. quits her job (even though she has rent and car payments) because there's "drama" and someone gossiped about her dating another co-worker or some shit. You couldn't expect her to pay her share of the rent and her car payments. "Drama", folks! JM wants to know if anyone is helping her? "No", she says. Turns out she's back with Mommy. Not quite homeless or living in her car. Oops. Car got repo'd. These millennials think that if anything at all makes them "uncomforable" or if anyone is "mean" to them, they can just forget their obligations, walk away and everyone should just get over it. Like, of course! JM makes a point of saying she could not imagine her social justice warrior girls standing in court and making a case. I truly believe that.

We also had the very irritating Queen of Hearts suing Tom Poston (from "Newhart") in a bad wig. After JM puts the brakes on her meandering, autobiographical monologue, turns out P expects the def. pool guy to make her filthy, debris-filled, bog-like pool like new for very little money. Her "guy" always does it for 250$. JM asks for a written, notarized statement from the usual, 250$ pool guy. Plaintiff doesn't have that. Why? "He lives in Suffolk County!" Is that in Siberia, or some remote location where email is not possible? Whatever. Since we don't know what really happened, who knows if he overcharged her? JM kindly gives plaintiff time to contact her pool guy for an official opinion and proof D did unnecessary work, but it seems he doesn't answer his phone very often. She comes back with zippo. She wanted back every penny of the 1K she paid Tom Poston, since she feels all the work he and his helper did do is worthless. She gets 100$. 

2 hours ago, Bdrums1971 said:

Kurt, I think. The guy who still does the intro voiceovers. 

You refer to the No-Neck Hall Clown, who reads Levin's Vaudeville-era "jokes."

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Costume designer suing for payment:

Plaintiff needs to be better organised: get signed contracts or written confirmations as MM instructed him, Also, when you come to court, sort through your evidence beforehand. I was extremely annoyed that the had to look through all of his text messages to find the useful one; he should have had it at hand, ready to produce instantly. But at least he had not lost or changed his phone, as so many do.

 

23 hours ago, SRTouch said:

pool service fail:

With her granite face and silhouette, plaintiff looked like a walking version of those Stone Age fertility figurines. I am quite ready to believe defendant's assertion that this is a game she played before on others. She should have gotten zero refund for all her lies and dirty tricks.

 

22 hours ago, Bdrums1971 said:

Watching the third case today makes me so glad I am not young anymore. The plaintiff just annoyed the *#!@ out of me.

Same for me, for much the same reasons. Someone should explain to her that "so" is a linking conjunction between a premise and a conclusion of some sort, not an all-purpose opening word.

She may be trying to act mature and independant, but she still has some ways to go: not keeping records or even the original ease, not being sure of the amounts that were paid, and her biggest mistake of all, choosing such a flake for a roommate.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/31/2020 at 2:35 PM, AngelaHunter said:

The impeachment hearings. Every day, partially or totally pre-empting my court shows. ☹️

Me too.  I finally get caught up and there's nothing but impeachment hearings.  Grr!

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
  1. custom closet fail: p paid defendant to install custom closet in his master bedroom - says partway though job he found D was cutting corners and using cheap particle board, which was not what he bargained for - wants return of $1507.75...... D argues he showed samples of materials and got approval before starting job - says he completed majority of project before P fired him....... welllll, unless P has something in writing which specified materials to be used, I don't see a complete refund - especially if, as hinted at in intro, D did majority of work before P pulled the plug...... ok, right off bat MM establishes that they had a written contract - sounds reasonable with design and materials to be approved by P, so wonder if D was smart enough to get something (even if just text) showing customer approval..... ok, first problem was that D took longer than estimated to begin job (supposed to be 5-6 weeks and actually 8 weeks before materials arrive) - major problem was that contract specified plywood construction and, as noted in intro, P found components made of MDF and particle board...... D doing a song and dance routine, but, bottom line, his contract specified plywood and customer approval of materials and he's pretty much admitting that's not what he provided...... d's spin on materials hurts his case - from his explanation sounds like the shelving was particle board as he talks about light weight and not sagging over a long span and I would NOT want deep/long shelves of particle board - MDF maybe if properly supported, but mdf is not exactly light and sags - actually, if I was customer I'd want 3/4" plywood with a hardwood face (oh, and I may not be a professional, but I could have done this job in a fraction of the time with furniture grade plywood and even lined the shelves with cedar for less money - I've been shopping material for my own walk in closet reno job)..... uh-oh, now p showing video - granted this may not not be the completed job, but video was taken in July almost a month after the installation - I would not be happy with want I'm seeing, and only out for D would be P wouldn't let him in to finish...... ok, just learned completed job was to cost $3500, P made 2 payments totaling about $2800, so not seeking full refund, and P was calling to complain for 2-3 weeks after the partial installation without D coming to address problems...... and again, D not helping his case any with his explanation, which seems to be that after first day of installing he realizes his measurements were off (he tries to excuse mismeasurement by claiming P helped him measure) and he needed to reorder materials....... ok, P not going for lotto money, or even everything he paid - I say he gets want he's asking for...... MM agrees, says d failed to keep customer informed on the cause of delays - P wins
  2. neighbor's trash fire damages car: p says neighbor started fire and her car was damaged - neighbor promised to pay for damage, but hasn't - wants $3409.42...... D denies car was damaged, and argues fire happened a couple years ago...... dueling pix - P's show damage while D shows nothing - have to wait and see which are true - also whether or not P's car is even worth the $3400 she wants for a paint job...... surprise! intro not at all like what I thought - turns out P was tenant in D's apartment complex - fire was started in another tenant's apartment a few doors down (other tenant left something on stove) - P's car parked in carport and, according to P, fire department knocked debris onto her car while putting out fire....... hmmmm not seeing why landlord would be on hook....... well, now P is saying the tenant who started the fire had previously started a couple other fires, so maybe, but - surprise surprise, this is just flapping gums with no evidence of any previous fires............. oh, wait, her witness was supposedly present on day of fire and saw debris falling on car and overheard conversation between Property owner (actually, D is son, and all tenant's dealings were with parents, having never met defendant in courtroom)...... witness testimony is defendant dad offered to settle by paying $400........ ok, first thought had P being unreasonable and after big bucks, but not at all happy that D has no first hand knowledge of fire or his dad's discussions with (P) tenant - still think $3400 is big reach, but Dad's 400 bucks may be low balling it....... ok, time for dueling pictures - D says his pix were taken last month - taken from distance, not showing any damage - while P shows all kinds of paint/glass damage (wonder when her pix were taken, as D says he had car washed and I'm thinking her pix may be day of fire before car was rinsed off - actually pretty much confirmed when she tells MM white mark on car is from sheet rock fire dept dropped on car)....... as I said earlier, not seeing anything D did wrong - according to D first they knew tenant who started fire was a problem was this fire, and they ended up paying that tenant to move out - also, P must not be too unhappy with the landlord as she's still living there...... D agrees Dad offered to settle, but insists there was minimal damage - finally MM asks the key question - what did D do wrong that they should pay - she points out that if anyone owes P it would be the other tenant who carelessly started the fire, not the landlord who was also damaged financially by the fire through no fault of their own....... well, I thought p was out of gas, but MM brings up possibility of D's offer to pay being reason why P didn't file through her auto insurance - so MM calls a recess to see if P can still file (even though incident was 2 years ago with insurance carrier P no longer has)....... uh, really - even if they determine insurance would pay she'd be back to having to prove her damages...... ok, after recess we learn P CAN still file a claim (not that I expect she'd get it), but she says her $500 deductible would come into play....... case dismissed
  3. Personal loan between friends: P claims she loaned good friend over $1800 - wants $1840....... D intro not making much sense  with D claiming P was homeless and that D let her move in and live rent free in D's home....... oh my, and from preview I gather P moved in with her dog and cat into a 10x20 room...... ok, these two started friendship online back in '15 - P doesn't deny she became homeless shortly after friendship began, and that she moved in with D with her pets in D's 2 bedroom house...... ok, according to P's own testimony, P moved in back in '15 and lived there until last November rent free....... geez, really!?! And she's suing for less than 2 grand after not paying rent for 4-5 years...... oh wait, backs the bus - now says her dates were wrong, now she says it was only 2 months that she didn't pay rent - ok, much much better, but still if we call that $1800 rent that still works out to $900 a month - but maybe not with her critters....... anyway, after the 2 months they both moved out of the 2br house into a new place, the 10x20 room, and P maybe began paying her share of rent, (D says it was 6 months not 2) short time later they move out of the shared room into an actual (1br) apartment....... oops, back up the bus - again - turns out dog belonged to D (not sure who claimed cat) way back when they first moved in together, and they pretty much shared custody of the critters - which is where the 'loan' comes in - dog needed vet care and the 'loan' is for the bills (total bill was almost 8 grand and P kicked in a grand while D took money from savings and took out a loan)....... ok, so P lived with and shared custody of pup Louie for 3-4 years - P says it was always a loan - maybe so, but sounds like these two were almost-married (no hint of anything sexual but they were sharing finances in a shared household)...... D argues she never thought of it as a loan, argues p was homeless when they met and that it was 6 months not 2 before P began paying her share of rent, and that when they first met she helped p get back on her feet by helping her pay to fix car as well as letting her move in rent free...... ok, of the two I'm believing D more than P - in addition to the $1000 for dog's surgery  (which D denies was a loan) there was another $115 vet bill that D agrees she owes...... ok preview going to commercial hints D may have been druggy bringing in other druggie........after years as roomies, P says D brought a 3rd roomie into apartment - and that's who she says was using - D denies this was a roommate - says it was a friend who she let stay sometimes who had a medical condition - not a druggie.... at that time they were month to month, and $700 of her lawsuit is her share of security that she didn't get back when she moved out when this 3rd person (maybe) moved in - ah, and the landlord applied that $700 towards rent that D admits she didn't pay - MM says she owes P the $700, plus there's the $115 vet bills D admits she owes - big ticket item is a grand towards Louie's surgery which D says was NOT a loan, plus some utilities/cable........ MM finds a text which backs up D's claim that the $1000 was not a loan until it was tacked on with the other things MM has decided was owed...... ok, decision time - D doesn't get the grand, and since there's no proof of utilities/cable nothing there - but gets the $815 for 1 vet bills and security........ good news from hallterview - Louie the pup doing well - D thinks ruling fair - P, well she fails to impress when she says lesson she learned was not to room with anyone - really, entitled snowflake must have forgotten she admitted she was homeless when she met D online and D let her move in and live rent free for at least a couple (maybe as long as 6) months...... other thing, whatever happened to the cat?
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

 d's spin on materials hurts his case - from his explanation sounds like the shelving was particle board as he talks about light weight and not sagging over a long span and I would NOT want deep/long shelves of particle board

Thanks. I only got to see part of this case and couldn't understand what the beef was about. I have shelves of particle board in a seldom-used cabinet in my basement. They are now deeply bowed from holding DVDs and some books. I certainly wouldn't use that material in any other part of my house.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

I've been shopping material for my own walk in closet reno job

Well aren't you just all "high and mighty"? 😄

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Personal loan between friends:

I've chatted with various people online, some for years, but if for some reason one of them became homeless I have to admit I would not invite them to come live with me for free. I wasn't sure who to believe - they both seem kind of shady/kooky - but D's barely concealed anger as she listed all the money she laid out for this giant sponge made me think she was telling the truth. Some people - it's like they work really hard at making a big mess.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

other thing, whatever happened to the cat?

I think it's best we don't know.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

(oh, and I may not be a professional, but I could have done this job in a fraction of the time with furniture grade plywood and even lined the shelves with cedar for less money - I've been shopping material for my own walk in closet reno job)

Don't know why, but as soon as Hallclown started describing this case, I flashed to Goldie Hawn in Overboard, refusing to pay for a closet after all the work was done, bitching that of course Kurt Russell should have known you only use cedar for a closet.

To me, plywood, particle board, MDF are all shitty.  Of course, I'm too poor to afford anything nicer.  🙂  Looking at the video, it seems like he could have gotten a better deal going retail without paying for a "custom" job.  Those shelves look like shelves I bought 30 years ago for about 30 bucks.  I could easily make a closet look that shitty for a whole lot less money.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

ok, after recess we learn P CAN still file a claim (not that I expect she'd get it), but she says her $500 deductible would come into play....... case dismissed

Why did the plaintiff never file under her comprehensive plan?  Her explanation for why she didn't file made no sense.  And why she did wait two years for this?  

Where's the dad?  

The first photo looked like there were hundreds of little chips in the paint, but after seeing the defendant's pictures, apparently it's water drops?  The photos in the plaintiff's stack were so close up that it was hard to determine what they were.  And given that it's been 2 years, who knows how old those pictures really are.

Really unusual that she switched from USAA to State Farm.  That doesn't happen much.  

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I wasn't sure who to believe - they both seem kind of shady/kooky - but D's barely concealed anger as she listed all the money she laid out for this giant sponge made me think she was telling the truth.

Also known as no good deed goes unpunished.  

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I think it's best we don't know.

I'd like to think the cat has found a better situation.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

preview going to commercial hints D may have been druggy bringing in other druggie........after years as roomies, P says D brought a 3rd roomie into apartment

Because the plaintiff hadn't yet done enough to piss off and smear the defendant.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

12 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Also known as no good deed goes unpunished.  

"She borrowed the money from her UNT." She said that twice, and I just wanted to slap the smugness of that bug-eyed heffalump's face. What does it matter where she got the money and what business is that of hers? What is it with these people - do they think that because they got kicked out of whatever place they were squatting that everyone else owes them something? If I were living in a 10x20' foot space with that specimen, homicide may have been on the agenda. That doesn't excuse the D for being such an idiot.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, SRTouch said:

neighbor's trash fire damages car:

MM was much too nice with the plaintiff by calling a recess and putting the show's resources at her disposal to call her former insurance company. She should have done all that work herself at the time of the incident instead of assuming tha the defendant was the liable party. She was either too lazy or too dumb to do it. Or perhaps a combination of both.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
  1. suing stepson over car deal: P sold car to stepson, but kid refuses to pay - P wants 5 grand, but he's reaching a bit - seems he wants 3 grand owed for purchase plus additional 2 grand spent to get junker on the road...... D says step-dad dynamic sold him a lemon - thing couldn't even pass inspection, so he shouldn't have to pay....... yeah, right, As-is shouldn't count when buying from family...... ok, pops had old, 06 caddy which hadn't been used for a couple years - he says it ran, but needed work after sitting for 2 winters, and he has receipts for some of the work he did before selling it to D - that's actually part of what went wrong with deal, according to what MM saw in texts - purchase price supposed to be 3 grand, and it isn't until deal fell through that P decides D should pay for repairs on top of agreed purchase price...... ah, quite the family dynamic - bet family get togethers are a bit tense - seems along with car deal gone south, step son worked for step daddy for years but has now been fired...... oh well, lots of texts where P wants 3 grand, none mention the additional 2 grand until things are in crapper........ over to D to find out why months went by without any effort to pay a penny - his excuse is pops canned his a$$, but MM points out he wasn't fired until months after he took possession of car and wasn't paying....... thankfully, MM is telling us about the texts without reading them aloud as she does at times...... ok, back to P as she asks what their agreement was - she interrupts his answer when it appears he's going off point, but he ignores her when she says she wants an answer to her question and goes into mudslinging about why he fired D instead of answering what purchase agreement was (something about D and a fraudulent check)...... when he does get to purchase agreement he's back to the 5 grand figure which MM has pretty much already cut to 3 grand...... ok, not liking either of these two and starting to check time when P starts in about stress at the business for past couple years that he says is worthy of appearing on Dr Phil..... oh dear, MM wants to hear about the business and I'm hitting FF when MM starts asking about the fraudulent check which turns into D talking about how he was scammed through some Internet 'sugar momma' site or something...... nope, need more coffee to hear this - though looks like audience finds it entertaining as they laugh in background - zip zip...... ok, MM pretty much blows his 'sugar mamma' scammed me claim out of the water as way D is explaining it there was nothing in it for scamming 'mama' and it was D who received money from the altered payroll check from step daddy...... ok, more mud slinging as P tries to bring in D getting a divorce, but MM cuts him off and wants to get back to car..... going way back to intro, part of D's defense supposed to be how piece of sh*t caddy wouldn't pass inspection, but turns out after having car for months - obviously driving it - he crashed it (and turns out he wrecked his previous 2 cars - anybody else want to ask about insurance on the caddy)....... uh-oh, sounds like MM going to start family counseling session after commercial - something about how the rift in family over car/fraudulent check etc has resulted in D never having been to see his newborn baby sister....... zip zip...... as expected after about 3 minutes in, P awarded 3 grand...... hallterview has D still making excuses, and stepdaddy proclaiming his love for da'bum, saying he'd still give him a kidney - but no more money
  2. paint contractor suing for payment: P says he and his crew spent days on job and he's owed $3240...... D says P didn't crappy job and refused to come back to make it right - says he ended up having to repaint everything........ ok, nothing in writing and apparently no meeting of minds which will result in MM dealing out some rough justice....... ok, little different here, as P isn't asking for what he says was agreed upon price of job - instead he's asking for 90% of full price - so guess he admits job either incomplete or not up to par...... ok, property is a brand new, high end apartment complex (5 story, 29 units) and D was hired to paint, and he sub'ed out part of job to P - apparently D had never worked with P, so he hired him to paint 1 apartment as a sort of test run with promise of more work if he did good job....... oops, big time, multi thousand dollar job, and D telling us he hired P through CL without getting a written contract - so we get to hear MM say 'we have a word for people like you - litigants'...... P sounds pretty silly complaining about time limit and fast pace, when MM asks why he agreed to job if he didn't have enough time his answer is he took job before he learned of time limit...... ok, when job was 90% complete they did a walk through before D was supposed to pay - last 10% of work was to be completed after other sub contracor came to do floors - ok, at walk through P says D changed deal - instead of offering to pay 90% he offered 80% - supposedly to ensure p came back to finish job after floors were done - D says reason he changed deal was not to make sure they came back, but because there were too many problems with work they had done - ah, but that doesn't seem to match previous testimony where MM says he smiled and nodded when D said reason was to force P to come back to finish job...... oh yeah, apparently another time MM lured in litigant by joking and acting all friendly and litigant forgot his prepared/rehearsed response and is caught foot in mouth...... sounds like D promised to pay 80% right after walk through, so why is P having to sue - even if there was a big kerfuffle over changed deal, P had a crew on the job over a week that deserved to be paid even if they did crap job - not liking defendant even a tiny bit....... oh well, now we're looking at pix of what D found wrong with job -  whoa, I used to paint low end apartments, and I would NOT expect to be paid for painting that ceiling - and we're talking high end brand new construction? - remember this is supposed to be 90% complete and a flooring subcontractor is coming to sand and finish the floor under that ceiling?.......  ok, not liking defendant but gotta say he has a point about sub par work and from pix I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't easier/faster to just go in, do proper prep and start from scratch - actually thinking 80% may have been generous after seeing pix - ah, but I love how MM gets upset with D for subbing out work he was hired by general contractor and turning to CL to hire some unknown contractor to do actual work - but D argues it's common to hire subs off CL and unusual for him to have problems with his hires........ now not happy with P as he argues his job was worthy of getting paid and pix so otherwise  - we learn D sent text saying thints needed to be corrected before he would pay (the reduced 80%) and P had hissy fit and called cussing and demanding payment - oh yeah, and he has 'nother hissy fit here........ ok, even with crap job, no way is MM going to let D off paying nothing - though, like I said after pix I think 80% may be too much...... well, MM goes with a higher number, awarding 3 grand (to which D mumbles 'that's ridiculous')
  3. PayPal scam: P says friend of 10 years scammed her out of $846.44...... D says not her, doesn't know what happened with P's account....... preview casts doubt on 10 year friendship claim, as apparently the 2 had a falling out and weren't on speaking terms for 6 years - what I'm wondering is why P would have given even a friend of 10 years her account info, I mean I do some online banking and have friends/family (some of whom I've known longer than it appears P has been alive) and none of those folks know my passwords/PIN........ oh dear, MM immediately wants to talk about whatever caused the friendship to fracture - which means less than nothing to me - apparently P was having issues with her family, and D got in middle - don't know, or care, so already hitting the zip button........ ok, sounds like the classic scam where somebody sends you money and asks to to send it back - here P received money in her PayPal account from D and D then asks for P to send it back via cash app, and of course the scam is that the 1st money transfer into the PayPal account is canceled or doesn't go through....... only question is whether it was really D pulling the scam or someone else who got a hold of her info - so does P have evidence?........ ah, does look suspicious when we learn this was actually 2 different transactions, 1 for $600 then another for a couple hundred - and whole thing makes no sense to Mm, why would D need to send P hundreds of dollars only to have P turn around and send it back - is she trying to get cash with a card with no balance, hoping to have enough time to cover it before transfer are completed?....... ok, whatever D was doing, P actually has the litter from PayPal saying that the transfers from D were later canceled by D as unauthorized transfers....... over to D, and right off D gets off on wrong foot - MM asks her if her PayPal is connected to her bank account, and instead of answering D wants to give a tutorial on how PayPal works - hey, MM knows PayPal can be connected to either a bank account or a credit/debit card,  and that wasn't the question - guess MM lets her talk in case some of the audience doesn't know........ ok, her explanation not making sense - she admits these were payments she received from some mystery 3 party which she then forwarded to good friend P, then she got P to send her cash........ so, accepting everything she just said, how would she not be responsible - sure, mystery 3 person may have scammed her, but it's on her and not something you pass on where you end up with your friend's cash...... ok, P foolish to get caught up in D's nonsense, D either got scammed herself or is a scammer, either way she needs to return P's money....... looking like D is a scammer, as she not only doesn't have her account on her phone (course, phone has water damage) and when MM asks if she knows her PayPal account info she says she can't access her account as her account #/password were saved on her phone (so easy to save your accounts with Google - also makes it much easier for someone to get your info if they get your phone open) oh well, also easy to click on 'forgot password' and get a new one....... yep, makes perfect sense - D passes hundreds of dollars through her PayPal account, is in court being sued because of transactions through her account, yet she comes to court claiming she hasn't bothered to contact PayPal and ask for new PIN/password - yeah, Riiiiiighttttt........ ok, easy Peasy, says MM,  let's get you a new PIN right now and we can check to see if you canceled the transfer...... ok, maybe we can't check D's account, but P has her account showing transfer from D to P was canceled by D and that's really all we need as it shows P receiving money from D, then using cashapp to send cash to D...... so D needs to return P's money, then follow up her own account if someone else scammed her........ oh, TPC set works a miracle - somehow, now D can access her account - simply amazing........ ah, but even though her own account shows she canceled transaction, she stubbornly insists not her, PayPal must have canceled it....... I've never canceled a PayPal transaction, but somehow if PayPal really canceled it I would expect an explanation like we saw on P's account instead of canceled by D........ oh well, no amount of evidence is going to get D to admit anything, so finally MM gets fed up and ups the volume....... P gets exactly what her evidence shows D owes........ and oh my, is that a smirk on scammer D's face as MM rules - probably, as she knows she won't end up paying a penny - yep and when she gets to hallterview she stops to talk, but Doug asks her how she feels after feeling the wrath of MM and D just turns and walks away without a word
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

suing stepson over car deal:

I imagine you'd have to really work at it very hard to be such a loser and a failure at only 21 years old. He's crashed three cars (so he'll never be able to get insurance unless he pays 10K/year) stiffs a family member who gave him a job, won't pay for some 14-year-old, non-running POS Caddy he thought he had to have,  has a scuzzy-sounding "wife" who encourages him to try and scam some cougar "Sugar Mama" online, his own real Mama is still having babies and he can't go visit and on and on. I guess that's about it, but I'm not sure since I couldn't make a lot of sense from his BS. Loser with a capital "L".

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

paint contractor suing for payment: 

Dumb and Dumber! I wonder how the owners of this large, up-scale apartment project felt when they saw that their contractor/manager/whatever gets some guy from CL to do the job he's being paid to do? Contract? Um, no. Of course not. Who needs contracts when they hire some guy about whom they know nothing to do a job? I detested the overfed, smirking, smug, arrogant asshole def, who declares the verdict "Ridiculous" when he is the one who is the big fool at the end.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

P says friend of 10 years scammed her out of $846.44

Oh, no. I forgot my PIN/password. What can I do? Even many months later I have not yet figured out how to get a new one. Oh, and my phone got water damage, so none of this is my fault, right? The trouble with most liars and crooks is that they are stupid, and def is no exception.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

I mean I do sone online banking and have friends/family (some of whom I've known longer than it appears P has been alive) and none of those folks know my passwords/PIN

Me too, and not one person in my life has any of the passwords for my accounts. I haven't offered them nor have they asked for them. Def really needed the 864$. The purple extensions, fake eyelashes, fake nails, bling, tats, nose ring and that low-cut thing she was wearing to display her truly distasteful, sagging cleavage don't come cheaply. Shameless. JM gave her such a good spanking she didn't even want to talk to Doug in the Hall, who also gave her a mild spanking although I doubt she knows what the word "wrath" means. 😄

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

We got preempted for most of the first case so CBS could spend 20 minutes telling us nobody knows what the fuck they're doing in Iowa.

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

The purple extensions, fake eyelashes, fake nails, bling, tats, nose ring and that low-cut thing she was wearing to display her truly distasteful, sagging cleavage don't come cheaply.

Those purple things looked a lot like drapery sashes I used to have.  

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Oh, no. I forgot my PIN/password. What can I do? Even many months later I have not yet figured out how to get a new one.

I've never used PayPal on my phone, but every app that opens with TouchID (which sounds like what she has) is connected to a login and a password.  And the password can easily be reset online.  But then, when MM wants her to log in, there she is. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I got to see almost the whole episode - I missed the first 5 minutes due to the impeachment hearings.

I missed a lot of the closet case, but those cheap types of shelves do tend to bow over time with weight on it.  You need sturdy hardwood for a job like that if you want it to look nice over time.

On 2/3/2020 at 5:23 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I've chatted with various people online, some for years, but if for some reason one of them became homeless I have to admit I would not invite them to come live with me for free. I wasn't sure who to believe - they both seem kind of shady/kooky - but D's barely concealed anger as she listed all the money she laid out for this giant sponge made me think she was telling the truth. Some people - it's like they work really hard at making a big mess.

I believed the D too.  And I'm thinking that after laying out 8 grand on the dog (which involved borrowing money to do), there may not have been anything left to buy cat food.  But cats are smart and it hopefully found another family to spoil it.

 

Depending on what kind of method the building manager used to wash the car, I'm thinking that they may have actually scratched the car with the glass or possibly imbedded the glass into the car.  She was hoping to avoid insurance and they strung her along.  But JM is right - technically they are not liable in this case.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

  1. cruise fail: p is a travel agent and D was the client and they just couldn't work together - not too surprising, as MM had trouble trying to get anything from both - P is pugnacious little toad of a man who may be hard of hearing as he only has a loud and louder setting when talking, not only that, but he's one of those irritating folks who doesn't listen when someone - like, oh, the lady in a black robe in the courtroom - is talking and asks a question - dude has evidence, some of which actually hurts his case, but of course he doesn't see that - case involved booking a cruise for D - P couldn't stand fact that D was still in planning stage and wasn't sure exactly what she wanted or who she was going to be traveling with - seems he was pressuring her to make decision so that he could lock in arrangements and get best price - eventually he told the vendor he was working through that he had told D he was finished trying to help her - ah, but problem was that when P quit D had already made 1 payment which he had forwarded to his vendor, he promised to get her money back, and vendor says hold on, contract D signed says no refunds and there's a cancellation fee - D disgusted with both P and his vendor, and books her trip directly with cruise people - if I heard right, dealing direct actually saved her money and she ended up with what she wanted all along - D upset with not getting her money back and having to pay the cancellation fee - and sues the vendor and P - ah, problem is that apparenyly these folks are dealing through the internet, and when she sues she files her case in New York, which means P has to travel to NY to appear, and case against vendor gets tossed and D is told if she wants to sue them she has to file in Connecticut  (?) - today's case is, essentially, nonsense with P wanting D to repay his expenses to defend against her lawsuit - and D has countersuit to again try to get her money back from the non refundable payment and cancellation fee - case should have been over in a couple minutes, but MM let them ramble on to fill alloted time - when time ran out she dealt first with countersuit - surprise! When you sign a contract you need to read the fine print, and D has no case for money back because it's right there in what she signed - pretty much same thing with P - you don't get back money spent defending yourself/business when you get sued after quitting on a customer, so zero zero tie
  2. foot dragging contractor: p hired long time acquaintance to do some construction, problem is she paid dude 5 of the 6 grand job was to cost, so he puts her at bottom of priority list - what maybe should have taken a week to 10 days drags out for months - finally, one day contractor dude drops by P's house (not to do any work, mind you - no he had ordered a piece for the gate and was tired of storing it at his place, so was bringing it over to store at P's house) anyway, when he shows up P is talking to someone in her yard and when D arrives she runs down D and says oh, look, here's guy who I paid 5-6 months ago to put in my new remote controlled gate - which I still don't have - that offends contractor dude, and he quits - now they're in court because homeowner wants some of her money back..... oh, part of backstory is that homeowner opened her home and let contractor live with her when he got into trouble with his parents while he and P's daughter were in high school - so, of course, MM has to ask doesn't he feel bad walking off the job from someone who helped him out way back when - and it WAS awhile back, cuz dude is gray haired now....... ok, part of problem that at beginning of job P was in hurry for her new gate, and D went against his better judgement and rented an excavator even though rain was forecast - dude ended up with paying for machine to sit in yard for a week doing nothing, and my impression was any profit from job went up in smoke because he was going to have to rent another excavator to do job - oh, and the initial big deposit before work started may have been spent on rental of excavator that sat idle for a week - of course, now to do job he'll have to rent it again - anyway, looking for rough justice as MM will have to decide how much the work everyone agrees D did is worth, how much he gets for materials he bought, and if he gets anything from cost of rental for equipment...... ok, MM decides a couple grand goes back to P
  3. 'nother contractor case: this time homeowner hired contractor to work on home - contractor tried to protect the hard wood floor, but used tape which pulled the varnish off - wants D to pay $2500 to refinish floors....... D says tape is guaranteed safe as long as it is removed within 30 days - says when he finished his work, P wanted him to leave tape as he was getting some furniture delivered - ok, he left tape, but told P to make sure tape was removed within a week - says P ended up waiting 2 months before removing tape....... ok, he said he said case - P denies he was told there was a time limit, and MM wonders why, if D felt it important enough to warn customer not to leave tape too long, D didn't get something in writing - you know, like maybe a simple text sent as a reminder...... ahhhhh truth is weather last night meant I was working late delivering pizza, I need a nap, so when this case sounded boring I zipped through it (but hey, folks really appreciate having food delivered after midnight when roads are iced over with snow on top - I ended up with $35 in tips on my last two deliveries)....... anyway, not sure what all was said, but apparently tape manufacturer does NOT recommend using this tape on varnished hardwood - P gets money for refinishing floor - but not extra 30% he asked for to clean up the dust after floors were sanded
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

cruise fail:

It's so interesting when you see someone whose name fits to a "T". In this case, "Walter" could never ever been anyone but a Walter. I was waiting for JM to tell him to stop shouting and she finally did, for all the good it did since he started shouting and waving papers around pretty quickly again. That someone like him, with a short fuse and a bad temper, could be in a position where he deals with the public is incomprehensible. I certainly wouldn't want to have anything to do with him. No one gets anything since as we know, "I didn't read what I signed" is no excuse. Both Walter and Tina(?) complained to Doug in the Hall that the judgement was unfair, and Doug had to all but throw Walter out as he continued to orate at a high volume. Oh, and Walter? Get a damned haircut.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

foot dragging contractor:

I had to skim this because the def's horrific grammar was hurting my ears, but I think awarding P the 2K was fair since def. walked off the job because his feelings were hurt or some nonsense like that. Or maybe he had another job that paid more. I have no idea.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

'nother contractor case: 

Honestly, a contractor who has no idea that duct tape will damage finished floors? He couldn't even be bothered reading the label on the stuff? Taking it off in a week or 5 weeks wouldn't make a difference. Plaintiff was totally in the right and I understand his annoyance, but trying to score an extra 600$ for dust cleanup was a little tacky and greedy.

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

It's so interesting when you see someone whose name fits to a "T". In this case, "Walter" could never ever been anyone but a Walter. 

This made me snort with laughter. 
 

I had my back turned when he started professing and I kid you not...my shoulders jumped from his bellowing.  It was going on for a bit and I too was waiting for JM to tell him to calm down.  His adrenaline was racing. You just know he was rehearsing his speech all morning. And Doug (God bless him) was having no part of it. 
 

And on a side note...I’d bet cash that Walter’s answering machine shouts “YOU’VE REACHED WALLY-BY-GOLLY...LEAVE A MESSAGE DAMMIT”
 

Get a haircut....still snorting with laughter 

Edited by PsychoKlown
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, SRTouch said:

cruise fail: 

How can plaintiff's customers stand his grating voice and his short temper? On the other hand, the defendant was another person who is never statisfied and will never admit that problems can arise when she changes her mind repeatedly.

6 hours ago, SRTouch said:

foot dragging contractor: 

Considering how the plaintiff came across as an unreasonable customer with unrealistic expectations (who probably still sees him as the chid or young person she once knew, and treats him as such), I can understand why the contractor decided to quit. However, by doing so her put himself in a position of liability, thus the partial refund (although I probably would have given her less).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

And on a side note...I’d bet cash that Walter’s answering machine shouts “YOU’VE REACHED WALLY-BY-GOLLY...LEAVE A MESSAGE DAMMIT,

😂😄 AND DON'T BE A PAIN IN THE YOU-KNOW-WHAT!"

12 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

On the other hand, the defendant was another person who is never statisfied and will never admit that problems can arise when she changes her mind repeatedly.

I agree. I would never have the patience to deal with the public and never did in my entire working life.  But Walter chose to work in a customer-oriented field packed with PITAS. I admire anyone who can do that and keep their cool.

A couple years ago we decided to get all the kitchen cabinet doors refaced and get a new countertop. The sales rep came over at 5p.m. with two enormous books with at least 100 samples. I looked at a few and within 10 minutes found a combo  I liked. "These look nice together," I said. "I'll take them." He looked a little stunned for a second and said, 'You will?"

I said, "I bet you get a  lot of people who make you spend hours going through every single option in every imaginable combination and then say, "Oh, I'll think about it" and either never make the purchase or make you come back and do it all over again." He just smiled. See, I'd be going all Walter on their asses: "YOU'RE WASTING MY TIME! I CAN'T DEAL WITH YOU! MAKE UP YOUR DAMNED MINDS!"

  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

There was a rerun (I think rerun) on this morning, where a woman sail rigger did a lot of work on a big sailboat for a man.   She gave him a 10% discount on labor and materials, because it was for charity, and he never paid her.    Then it turns out that when the woman contacted the charity about the non payment, they said that the man wasn't a member of the organization, wasn't authorized to do anything using the charity's name, and his boat was not a part of the charity projects.   He lost big time.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

There was a rerun (I think rerun) on this morning, where a woman sail rigger did a lot of work on a big sailboat for a man.   She gave him a 10% discount on labor and materials, because it was for charity, and he never paid her.    Then it turns out that when the woman contacted the charity about the non payment, they said that the man wasn't a member of the organization, wasn't authorized to do anything using the charity's name, and his boat was not a part of the charity projects.   He lost big time.  

Oh yeah - I remember this one. Old lady, first and maybe only female rigger that D calls a pillar/legend in their sailing community. MM tries to get her to describe how she is hoisted up to rig sails, and P starts to describe it, then sounds like she doesn't want to admit she's still doing the job at her age as her kids (daughter ?) - mentions a fall she took out of the rigging and apparently daughter doesn't know about and daughter already wants her to stop working. As for D, turns out he expected free work on boat jointly owned by him and some buddies because, at some unspecified future date, he might offer to provide free boat tours to the charity.

Hmmmm, why is I thinking Gilligan and a 3 hour tour?

Edited by SRTouch
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

Jalena Wright(?) is very smart for not getting back with Mr Jade Jewelry, who thinks giving his ex a bunch of earrings and pendants means she MUST get back with him.  He's such a catch, though, a cheater who gets disability and doesn't pay child support or see his kid but thinks that a bunch of jade is the secret weapon to get back into a woman's heart, like it's a law or something. 

Sis dodged a bullet with this, because I'm sure he would have held that gift over her head for any issue that he didn't agree with.   "You can't kick me out, I gave you those earrings!"

Edited by patty1h
  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
  1. wants to be repaid for gift: intro for P sounds like dude has no case - if I understood former hall clown correctly, P tried to woo back his ex by showering her with 10 grand worth of jewelry - supposedly gave jewelry in an attempt to get back in good graces of ex - now P is suing for return of gift - apparently they came from jurisdiction with increased max, cuz he's asking for 10 grand........ D doesn't deny P bought her the bling, but says a gift is a gift, she doesn't want him but is keeping the jewels - good grief, not only does D think she should keep the 10 grand gift, she has a countersuit for 6 grand for emotional distress and lost wages....... unless there's some evidence the jewelry was given/accepted like an engagement ring, don't see P legally getting anything, though morally ex probably ought to return gift or just never accepted it in first place - actually, instead of watching testimony I'm thinking Douglas needs to the the two out back for a wake-me-up spanking/beat down...... when testimony starts, P actually starts by doing what litigants should do - not saying much and keeping answers short and to point - they divorced some 6 years ago, must have been shortly after daughter was born as daughter now 6yo..... welllll, just because litigants should keep it short and on point, that isn't best for tv, so MM swaps and asks ex wife why they split - ah, she's happy to sling some mud, says P was a cheating liar so she gave him the boot..... seems P was trying to work things out for next 4 years, but D isn't forgiving sort, so finally, a couple years ago, P went out and bought the bling........ ok, P must be delusional, says he went shopping to buy himself some bling, and ended up buying ex 10 grand worth of jade jewelry cuz she was on his mind - some nonsense about everything was "still cloudy" even though they weren't dating or even on speaking terms.......... hmmmm only 4 minutes in, but these two are BORING so I zip ahead..... no surprise, case ends early and P is first out the door - little bit I caught seems while P may be out buying bling, he's a deadbeat dad who isn't supporting his daughter - not only is he a deadbeat dad, but he addresses the judge as "Judge, Marilyn" with definite pause so gets admonished not to call her honor Marilyn..... oh well, apparently somewhere along way P forgets keeping it short and point and starts showing true colors..... MM hot, bangs her gavel and leaves as P tries to argue and talk over her - apparently he argues not his fault that child support was denied by courts - ex wife pawned the bling and MM says good for her.... oh my, good Ole Doug piles on the deadbeat dad, asks P's if he's at all interested in daughter and P actually says no - Doug ends hallterview by saying he just doesn't think P 'gets it'...... when wife gets to Doug, he asks what she got for the 10 grand of bling at pawn ship - couple hundred, she says - wow, if that's all MM ought to take back that attached girl she gave in court 
  2. dirt hauler wants to be paid: p says he spent 29 hours hauling dirt to D, and D refuses to pay - wants a couple grand....... D says agreement was $80 a load for 5 loads and he was willing to pay $400, but then he learned dirt was no good - he wants a couple grand to pay someone else to get rid of the bad dirt....... hmmmmmm, so must not have been a contract which spelled out how much P was to be paid, and have to wait to see how/when D found out soil was contaminated - and if dirt is really no-good, why would D claim it will cost a couple grand to pay someone else to get rid of $400 worth of dirt...... okkkkkk, right off bat MM determines the dirt/landfill was being hauled from excavation of a septic system - so, soil may well be contaminated, but did D get it tested or is he just not happy with not knowing before hand......... if I understand right, this was excavated soil from a new system - so shouldn't be contaminated and countersuit just you-sued-me-so-I'm-suing-you type reaction - P advertised free 'mostly to very clean' landfill - originally D was going to come get it with a trailer (holy moly, what size trailer and how many trips was D expecting to make), but ended up asking P to deliver - of course P was charging for delivery......... ah, that's the rub, P well within rights to charge for delivery, but without charges agreed on before hand it will be up to MM and rough justice to decide on appropriate charge...... according to P, when they talked about delivery charge he quoted $80 an hour - NOT - a load - oh, and P admits they never discussed how many hours total it would take - and they didn't discuss price until he showed up with first load....... whoa, talk about a loosey-goosey verbal contract, both sides foolish to even consider this arrangement. ..... takes some pressing, but P finally tells us it would take 12 loads to move this amount of dirt, which sounds about right as most dump trucks haul 10-15 yards at a time and we're talking 120 yards...... makes me wonder where D was putting all this fill, and D's intro talking about expecting 4-5 loads sounds more reasonable....... ah, 'nother problem for P - even according to his loosey-goosey arrangement, he didn't quote price until D saw size of truck, but then he ended up using a smaller truck requiring more time/loads and he wants to charge based on $80 an hour quote given D for use of bigger truck....... ok, P testimony not making sense to me, ready to hear some answers from D....... ok, MM recognizes need to move on - first, P explains reason for downsizing truck was bigger truck too big to maneuver in D's property - uh, that answer not good, if truck was too big I really question his claim that D was expecting of 120 yards....... ah, D was really in over his head - he says he was told bigger truck held 18-20 yards which, if he expected 5 loads meant he expected, at most, 100 yards, but I think he still has no idea - oh, reason he wanted it was to fill in a raven on side of property, but like I said, I don't think he had a clue of what he needed or how much he was bargaining for...... D admits he was quoted 80 bucks, but says he doesn't remember if that was per hour or load, just that that first load was going to cost $80........ ok, I believe D, just think he was clueless and trusting whatever P said without checking basic facts - not sure I believe P, his story doesn't ring true and I think he was just happy to get rid of the fill so he could finish his other job, and then decided to get as much as he could from D - either way, not really interested in what I'm hearing......... hang on, just as I said I believe D, P says he has texts from D agreeing to $80 an hour....... still think D didn't have a clue, still think P should have modified charge when he decided to change agreement and use smaller truck, and still expect case to cone down to MM administering some rough justice...... ok, while P looks for incriminating text, MM questions D about the 2 grand countersuit....... hmmm, again not liking P's earlier testimony, as I understood this fill was from new septic system installation in virgin ground - now D has pix showing pieces of an old system, various chunks of concrete, pipes, and wiring....... ok, maybe I misunderstood, but now I get why D may not what the fill and countersuit to get it hauled away - he'll still need tests showing contamination before he gets money........ ok, back to texts - yep, sure'nuf, D agreed to $80 per hour, not load - along with that, going with texts he was expecting each load of the bigger truck to take 1 hour, but his 1hr estimate based on travel time and didn't allow for time spent loading/unloading, with a total of 8 loads (not 5 like he testified) so with texts he expected to pay $800, not $400 - ah, now p says he tried to renegotiate price and charged what it would have taken with bigger truck - and oh, BTW, says at one point D agreed to pay $1400, but then changed his mind...... soooo, here I thought for awhile it was D not knowing what he was getting, but now P has changed things around to where most of D's testimony is being disproved through texts. ..... OK, I've switched sides on the charges, but what about D's claim about contaminated fill - he's basing that on debris seen in landfill and stuff downloaded off the 'net, and not from any test results....... ah, and D is here in court arguing that $2200 P charged is ridiculously high, but that's what he's using in the countersuit to base his estimate of what it will cost to remove the 'contaminated' landfill......soooooo, no test confirming fill is contaminated nor any estimate of cost to remove it if it is - forget countersuit (or dismiss without prejudice and let D get tests and a real estimate)..... ah, (possible) switcheroo, as P is saying this WAS new septic system, not replacement - the concrete pipes etc seen in fill was from old storm drain - not a septic system - oh my, P testifying this was from a neighborhood built back in the '50s where all the sewage was piped straight out into a bay/waterway - reason his customers were installing a septic was to bring it up to current standards - scarey, but remember pollution standards were once nonexistent and rivers and waterways were once so contaminated the 'water' would burn......... okkkk, all this back and forth has me scratching my head - loosey-goosey P now sounding more believable than D who has been caught lieing when MM reads the texts - but I'd be fine with giving D a chance to get fill tested and filing suit if it turns out contaminated......... ok, rough justice time - MM dismisses countersuit outright - like I said I might have dismissed without prejudice but MM says it would have been SO SIMPLE to test the fill - main suit - P gets lecture for loosey-goosey charges, and MM goes rough justice swag and awards $1600 (actually a good deal, as I think at one point P would have accepted $1400).... both litigants admit loosey-goosey arrangement proved foolish - love Doug for getting them to admit it, too
  3. dog attack: skipped before P intro is completed....... 
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

wants to be repaid for gift: 

OH.My.God. They divorced years ago. He couldn't stop thinking about that. He buys her 10K worth of JADE, even though he's on public assistance. No, he has no receipts or even copies of receipts but he's sure it was 10K. I wish I had written down the nutty, nonsensical stuff he kept spewing. The only one I could sort of understand was, "It's not my fault that she doesn't force me to pay child support."  Yet, even with his many, many deficiencies in looks and brains and morals, he still managed to find women who just couldn't resist him. He's so nutty he makes even the ex-wife - not heavy with the grey matter herself - sound like a Harvard graduate. She wanted to breed with him. 'nuff said. That poor child has zero chance with these Mensa members as parents. omg. Doug in the Hall listens to more insane rambling.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

dirt hauler wants to be paid: 

These guys could speak English but both seem to be kinda dumb. Def Googles his little fingers to the bone after they couldn't agree on a price or if the fill is even legal, although I'm pretty sure if D had been happy with the price the ecological aspect would have been ignored. JM notes that if they had taken just a fraction of the time they spent doing that in making an agreement beforehand all this could have been avoided. Duh.

Dog case skipped here too.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

OH.My.God. They divorced years ago. He couldn't stop thinking about that. He buys her 10K worth of JADE, even though he's on public assistance. No, he has no receipts or even copies of receipts but he's sure it was 10K. 

When he said he didn't have receipts - and that he was on public assistance - my first thought was, "Yeah . . . jewelry stores don't give you receipts for what you snatch, grab and run with."  

Non-detailed summary of the dog case.  Plaintiff was suing defendant for injuries to plaintiff's dog.  Defendant offered to pay half of vet bill, but plaintiff wanted her to pay all of it.  After hearing the case, MM advised Plaintiff she should have taken the half and stayed out of court.  She ended up with nothing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, SRTouch said:

wants to be repaid for gift: 

The plaintiff seemed a few logs short of a full load. I think it's very probable that the defendant took advantage of that intellectual deficit.

That being said, she may not be the brightest bulb either because she was quite content to have pawned for a few hundred dollars jewelry that supposedly cost up to 10 k$. Assuming of course both litigants were truthful about the amounts in question.

Also, any moderately wise person knows that by accepting gifts in such a situation, you are injecting life into a personal connection you purportedly want to sever; you can also generate or fan unrealistic hope in the other party. Legally she was well within her rights to keep it, but she should have given it back to make a final clean break. However, the appeal of free stuff may be irresistible to people of a certain character, no matter the repercussions.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
  1. dumb and dumber: p wants money for borrowed tools, hoopty he loaned drinking buddy, plus ticket and new brakes on car....... D has convoluted story of why, even though car was towed while he had possession, P should have paid ticket and then he would repay p when he got money....... both sides have big problems with their cases..... 1st off, this p loaned buddy car years ago and statute of limitations has expired - second, P wants money for brakes going out, but as MM asks, what could D have done to cause brakes to go - I mean this was OLD car (think they said '99?) And sounds like D only drove car for a week and then parked it as brakes were metal to metal - no pads left and rotors ate up - that's long time maintenance issue not something D caused - only thing is that D admits he agreed to pay, says least he could do when buddy loaned him the ride was pay for brakes - but says brake job was never done so why pay - this is where statue of limitations comes in, as this was 4-5 years ago, P says he did work himself, but of course no receipt for parts - oh, as for the ticket, D figures he paid that off by paying buddy's bar tab so they're square..... whole car thing is a bust, so moving on to borrowed tools - only proof tools ever existed is that D admits he borrowed them (again, years ago) says he never returned them, and actually still has some at home. His defense for not returning tools - one night while drunk, P thought it'd be funny to tell D's 8 month pregnant gf that D was cheating on her, or maybe he was pissed about not getting paid for car. Gf so upset she almost miscarried, and D figures the heartache caused cancels any debt or requirement to return tools...... oh, like I said, D still has some of the tools, plus at one time bought replacement for missing items (though apparently bought wrong tools) - they still live in same neighborhood so he could have returned them at any time over the years, and, even though he still has tools he didn't bring them to court today..... why not, asks MM - turns out he came to TPC straight from family court where he had custody hearing - yeah, he and gf split up (not sure if same gf and kid)..... ok, think that's what happened, but I was eating lunch in other room so missed parts - P awarded $440
  2. landlord suing tenant over damages: missed part of this one too, and didn't sound worth rewinding DVR..... landlord P wants money for floor damage and misc other stuff - seems even before tenant moved out P was in planning to reno place, so of course ex tenant needs to pay...... another of those cases where litigants have little evidence and are expecting judge to believe them and their hearsay evidence...... sounds like both sides agree there was damages, just argue about who was to blame and liability - big ticket item is floor - D argues some mystery flooring contractor looked at damage and declared it was installed improperly - P argues HER flooring contractor says it is water damage - but of course she has nothing going from the contractor (actually, think they're talking about same contractor and remembering get VERY different conversations) - and, part of her damages is she blames D for bathtub seal failure (not really sure WTH that's about, but I gather the bad seal was discovered when she had reno work done on bathroom some three months before tenant left, so I'd really question how tenant supposedly cause a bad seal)...... uhoh, sounds like receipt she presents for the bathroom work before tenant left is iffy, either wrong receipt or made up months later after rest of reno was done - course P says she has the correct receipt - at home......  MM not happy with P coming to court without evidence, so we hear about how litigant should get the evidence BEFORE filing...... back to floors, P says she has pix, but apologizes for poor quality - even with good quality pix not sure how she'd prove tenant was at fault - from earlier testimony, her claim was floors damages by water leaking from tub, but MM has already cast doubt on leak being caused by tenant...... now it's D turn to offer up iffy evidence with claim that when P came with mystery contractor, contractor said floor improperly installed..... uhhuh, suspect hearsay evidence - P hubby denies contractor ever said such a thing, but I find it odd that floor was originally put in by daughter's husband (2 years ago) and now P is bringing in some other contractor to replace floors at cost of over 2 grand..... ok, again P flapping gums, denying contractor said anything about incorrect install and insisting contractor blamed water damage - even if she had something proving water damage theory not sure MM is convinced D was liable for the leak - and even if he is liable why replace whole floor when pic shows one small area damaged....... ah, but why bring evidence when we should trust P cuz of her gold cross necklace...... unless there's some major switcheroo coming after commercial this one's over...... well, sort of a switcheroo - P sees MM isn't buying the bath tub seal theory, so for first time she's now saying it was condensation caused by window ac - whoa, picture shows unit under window in hole cut in wall for ac, but apparently landlord left hole empty and Tenant installed own ac unit..... so new argument is that Tenant improperly installed unit - again, flapping gums and possible theory, but no evidence...... oh my, and now that P sees she's about to lose she's getting worked up and is trying to work up some tears....... MM breaks out her magnifying glass, and we discover D did leave a gap around unit, so the unit not properly installed - and floor under ac is damaged - okkkkk, that may be enough to point to ac as cause of floor damage, and MM asks and is told that P kept the $1225 deposit.... hmmmmm was there a countersuit for the deposit....... ok, MM is not happy with P non-evidence, nor fact they kept deposit but didn't apply any of the $1200 towards damages....... MM gets the letter detailing why they kept deposit, and - surprise - they have no evidence of stuff they charged for, ie, $165 to clean stove, but no picture of dirty stove..... ok, case dismissed...... and NO have countersuit, but after hearing MM tear into landlord for keeping deposit with no proof D tells Doug he plans to file suit to get something back (he admits to some damage, so wouldn't get the whole amount)
  3. car crash: p alleges D left roadway and crashed into her fence while making turn - oh, and says her security camera caught vid of crash - wants $601.78...... D doesn't deny hitting fence, but claims damages exaggerated - complains that when she knocked on door to tell people about accident P called the cops - one of those litigants who acts like this is a joke....... not sure what's wrong with calling cops when there's an accident with property damage - I might call cops just to report reckless driving if anyone ran off road and hit my fence - heck, I get pissed when people drive onto my lawn, never mind hitting a fence -  as far as an exaggerated claim - 600 bucks does NOT sound like a money grab - oh, and after all the no evidence litigants lately, I'm happy to hear P has video and to see her pulling out what looks to be folder/envelope of - could it be? - evidence........ ok, these folks are neighbors - P was at work and her brother in law called to tell her her fence had been hit - uh huh, so much for D claim that she went to knock on door to inform P and P called cops - no what happened was B-n-law heard the crash, came outside and D was there looking at where she hit fence - couple times she tries to say she went to notify b-n-law, but ends up admitting he got her inspecting the damage - B-n-law calls p at work, and when P got home she went to neighbor's - obviously not a lot of damage, but more than just a tap as D intro claims if it was loud enough for B-n-law to come investigate - accident happened when D swung too wide turning into driveway in alley - better than it sounded in intro as lots of time alley driveways are pretty tight...... oh no, D trying to play innocent young thing, little small on face trying to be cute as she says she's a beginner driver (we learn 19yo)...... wellllll, fence was plain chainlink, and pic shows corner post needs to be replaced - not a big deal, not a lot in material, but I'm guessing not a little job if it's in concrete - and yeah, fence right up to alley and pretty tight for getting into driveway...... yepper, when asked P whips out her envelope and presents actual evidence (nary a sign of video, but then D admitting she did deed) - an estimate - MM asks and, no surprise, at scene everyone guessing cost way low - apparently someone on scene guessed $60 - and yeah, doing it yourself it would be way under $600 - but if you hire a fence company $600 is not out of range.......what I'm thinking is why her bf, who she apparently lives with his mommy next door to P, didn't call a couple friends, go to home depot for post and cement, bust out a couple tools, and fix fence next weekend over pizza and beers - that's what would have happened when I was her age - in fact back in the days before video games, smart phones and computers, in my old neighborhood, there would have been a Tom Sawyer like event with all kinds of volunteers - along with a couple adults to tell us what to do even if they didn't know - that fence would have been good the next Monday...... oh, my, after commercial MM actually asks why bf didn't step up and at least come support her in court, and D turns around and there's the bf sitting in audience..... well, in intro we heard P didn't want her to try to fix fence, so maybe D's bf offered to sweat a little and earn a blister or two busting concrete and resetting the post ....... not that complicated and I bet they could find DIY YouTube...... just as likely, bf, mommy and D got lippy, refused to do anything, Cops were called and suit filed - sure didn't sound like these folks were on good terms even before accident anyway, but that's just conjecture not stated here........MM awards the estimate amount
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 4
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, SRTouch said:

dumb and dumber:

I recently found a British expression that is perfect for these two: Tosspots. Two tossposts are are so dumb I can't believe they've lived this long. Four-year old fight over a 16-year old beater car. I was really hoping neither of these inbred-looking dullards had reproduced, was was disappointed as usual. Don Juan def passed on his stellar genes with some terminally desperate little mutt but they broke up because I guess he wants to spread his irresistible self around to other, even more desperate dummies who are in need of some of his lovin'.

19 hours ago, SRTouch said:

landlord suing tenant over damages: 

For someone who never thought of/couldn't get/left at home/pictures didn't turn out (and I guess it was impossible to take another one) any evidence needed, plaintiff certainly was rocking some attitude, eyerolls and all. I mean, she was wearing a honkin' big cross on her neck to prove how religious she is so why wouldn't JM take all her "someone told me that he thought..." hearsay as proof? D was such a good tenant, but he needs to pay for ripping up the paint in the bathtub. I guess he did it just for the lulz. P probably used housepaint on it. P ges a big fat goose egg. English is murdered.

19 hours ago, SRTouch said:

car crash: 

Def is 19. She admits here - because she has no choice - that yes, she crashed into the plaintiff's fence. But she's a new driver, so oopsy. In spite of the fact that she lied about planning to notify P about the accident, was actually trying to sneak away but  "got caught red-handed" hee hee! *big cutesy smile* by P's bro-in-law, JM seemed to find all that just adorable, the way she always does with young litigants no matter what they do. Fence-rammer Googled and saw that a new fence post is only 27$ so why should she pay 600$? Not cute at all.

Edited by AngelaHunter · Reason: correction
  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

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