Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Lillybee

The People's Court

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

In the car deal gone wrong case some observations:

 

1.  Upon realizing he was losing the case rather rapidly, the Plaintiff (Mr. Ortiz) muttered "I shoulda taken care of things 'my way' ".  Sounds like a thug threat, and JM doesn't question him about it. Hmmm. I;m afraid for the defendant since the P appeared quite unstable as the case was going down.

 

2.  At one point, JM decided to prop both her feet up on the desk. Yep - she did this. Something a kid would do, and at 59 she's not a kid. Just goes to show the world: all the money in the world can't buy you class or manners. But I always knew that by how she talks with her hands and yells at people for no reason. 

 

 

1.  Yep.  Little plaintiff asshole was pulling a scam and got caught.  Then wanted to doubledown with obvious threats.  Loved him losing and having to pay for arrears!  Sure wanted a hallterview with that one!  Why, why can't we have cameras down the "storming out" hallways!

2.  Aww, don't rag on my girl!  I thought the feet on the bench was hysterical!  She had P's number and was trying to shame him on his BS claim.  I thought it was a "You are not serious RightNow, and I won't be either moment"

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

13 hours ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

At one point, JM decided to prop both her feet up on the desk. Yep - she did this. Something a kid would do, and at 59 she's not a kid.

I think she did it to show the plaintiff how utterly contemptuous she was of him. He fully deserved having to gaze upon the sole of her shoes for the rest of his testimony.

On the other hand she was very patient with the litigants in the second case who kept interrupting, talking over everyone and blurting out answers before the question was finished. Plaintiff was another example of those leeches who think the world owes them everything, including almost free lodgings and cleaning up their mess when they leave. And of course compensation for pain suffering, just because someone was not as obsequious to her as she thinks she deserves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

I think she did it to show the plaintiff how utterly contemptuous she was of him. He fully deserved having to gaze upon the sole of her shoes for the rest of his testimony.

 

Yep, I know why she did it. But she's being 'disrespectful' in a court of law by doing so, something she reprimands others for doing. If she wants to be taken serious as a 'judge' she needs to act professional. Save the over-acting for your kids at home, when they misbehave. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

2.  Aww, don't rag on my girl!  I thought the feet on the bench was hysterical!  She had P's number and was trying to shame him on his BS claim.  I thought it was a "You are not serious RightNow, and I won't be either moment"

I think she is just so passionate about the law and hates injustice. Dealing with an endless streams of liars, scammers, lowlifes, abusers, morons, etc is enough to make anyone get a little testy. I certainly couldn't deal with them or listen to their convoluted lies recited in mangled grammar. At least we get to see them get spanked, not that it makes the least impression or causes them one drop of shame.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

 Save the over-acting for your kids at home, when they misbehave. 

Oh ThePurpleArcher....surely you jest.

JMM's children are perfect.  Absolutely perfect.  They love each other, they're sassy, they're beautiful, they're successful, they're athletic and anything out of line they do is considered "cute" by mom.

Wonder when real life will wash over them like a bucket of cold water?  

  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

JMM's children are perfect.  They love each other, they're sassy, they're beautiful, they're successful, they're athletic

They're SJWs too, don't forget!

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Wonder when real life will wash over them like a bucket of cold water?  

When that happens it's going to be a major shock.

Share this post


Link to post

The first case is pretty sad - 20(?) year old son suing his mom after his DUI. 18 year old sister is alongside Mom as a defendant.  Son looks like your typical neckbeard incel.  He was released to his mother after one night in jail, for blowing a 2.xx on the Breathalyzer.  He came home, then picked up a bat and left the house with it.  Mom got nervous and called the police as she didn't know what her drunk son would do next, and he was re-arrested.  He decided to move out and now wants various items he accuses Mom of holding:  some old printer, 2 cameras and a mountain bike.  Son seems pretty bitter for some reason, calling his mother a thief.  After questioning from JM, it comes out that the father has 'checked out' on the family and that son is bitter about that too.  Then the bombshell - son sexually assaulted his sister when she was younger and that is the main reason that Dad is out of the picture.

JM makes sure the sister is comfortable talking about this - she says yes but some tears flow. She has been to counseling and says she's coping better.  She also says she no longer wants a relationship with brother.  Honestly, at this point, I muted the TV.  JM banged the gavel right after - it was so quick I presume she just dismissed everything.  

Case # 2:  Classic older man "helping out" a much younger woman who was short on cash.  59 year old dude is a taxi driver who picks up chick who looks like a hybrid of Kim Kardashian and Nicki Minaj and loans her beaucoup dollars after a couple of sob stories.   He trusted her!  I was so hoping that JM would mime playing a violin while he swore he had no ulterior motives.   Sure, Jan.

Edited by patty1h
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

The gold digging girlfriend was despicable.    He was stupid.    I don't think he got anything.  The amusing part was one thing he paid for was for her to go to her fictitious friend Rebecca's mother's funeral in Miami.    There is no Rebecca, no mom, and she went to Miami to have fun.  Plaintiff also offered to pay for her bigger set of fake boobies, because they both like big boobs.        I don't think he received anything, because there was no expectation of repayment. 

I hated the plaintiff in the property he left behind at Mother's house.   It wasn't even her current house, but two houses ago.    He also thought it was amusing that his sister wouldn't even look at him in court, after she said he sexually assaulted her when he was 14, and she was 13.       He claimed that since he never heard anything else about the case, it was nothing.    He was a psycho, and I hope the mother and sister get restraining orders against him if he bothers them in any way.     I wonder if the 'dad' who left was a stepfather?   

The plaintiff received what he deserved, nothing.    I believe everything the defendants said about the plaintiff.       I suspect that the mother and sister will always have harassment from plaintiff.      

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, patty1h said:

Son looks like your typical neckbeard incel. 

Thank you. This is accurate.

Gee, this escalated quickly. We had goofy son, who is legally an adult, wanting 500$ back for a car which his Mom bought (all but for the 500$)registered and insured in her name in order to scam the insurance company. Plaintiff son of course didn't want to do that, but he had no choice due to Mommy's "abuse of power" in which she "wouldn't let" him drive the car unless it was done her way. Sonny gets a DUI and walks around after Mommy brings him home, still drunk and carrying a baseball bat just in case he meets a bear while taking his constitutional and it all sounds like a typical ho-hum not-Norman Rockwell family garbage, but then we find out from Mom (who couldn't wait to share this piece of info with the world) he sexually assaulted his sister. There was something in Sonny's affect that makes me worry he might end up in some headlines for murder, rape or some other serious crime. These neckbeard incels seem to simmer with hatred and always be on the verge of violence.

Thank goodness the next case was funny as hell. Garden-variety, stupid, horny, dirty old man, 59 years old, wants to "help" nasty, overly made up, grasping, grimy, hard-rode looking 27-year-old who has shockingly (for her age) droopy, pancake boobs, buy her necessities, like huge fake eyelashes, fake nails and other "must haves". (27!! Geeze, when I was that age I looked like a young girl and had very perky boobs!)He gives her a credit card. She uses it to go to Florida, I guess to get some younger action and have some fun on the Old Fool's dime. She also needs money for her friend Rebecca, who doesn't exist. SHDOM is only too happy to shell out money to someone he's never met. 😅 Stupid dirty old man. He even wanted Def to get big fake boobs - he's a fan of massive mammaries -  to go with all her other fake shit, but for some reason she declines. Sadly, this sweet, touching romance comes to a crashing halt when Def hoe tells dirty old man she's "not ready" to have sex with him. I guess she's a virgin who wants to make sure her first time is extra special. I get it. There are no victims here. Dirty old man didn't get what he felt he paid for. Tough luck. Seriously, he could get whatever he wanted with an actual, honest prostitute and it would have cost him way less.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I’m glad the second case was a palette cleanser from the heaviness of the first case. Not gonna lie, I was not mad at D’s hustle. It was hilarious to see P try to deny that it was a sugar daddy/sugar baby situation, and he deserved what he got. And JM is right, he’s going to get played by someone else again. 
 

The first case, oh man. Yes, to incel neckbeard. The level of entitlement that little piece of crap had. I think mom asked the daughter if it was okay to reveal what really happened, because that part was so obvious. I bet he was the kind of kid who hurt people and got away with it. I fear any woman who crosses his path. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

They're SJWs too, don't forget!

When that happens it's going to be a major shock.

Yes.  I forgot.  

I suppose I was so dazzled by their other accomplishments it simply slipped my mind.

There’s three of them.  Wonder which one will be an Influencer?   I wanted to be an influencer when I was their age but there was no internet, no family money and frankly, anything I did no one noticed.  

  • Laugh 8

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

 I wanted to be an influencer when I was their age but there was no internet, no family money and frankly, anything I did no one noticed.  

Same! I don't mean about the "Influencer" part, but the rest of it. I can't help but wonder what all the "YouTube Stars" and Hair/Makeup/Fake Nail Influencers will  do when their star fades and no one is interested in being influenced by them?

Okay, so maybe I was an Influencer. I know my friend's father griped that I was a bad influence I was on his daughter (Ha!). Does that count?

  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post

9 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Same! I don't mean about the "Influencer" part, but the rest of it. I can't help but wonder what all the "YouTube Stars" and Hair/Makeup/Fake Nail Influencers will  do when their star fades and no one is interested in being influenced by them?

Okay, so maybe I was an Influencer. I know my friend's father griped that I was a bad influence I was on his daughter (Ha!). Does that count?

You got me. 
 

Substitute Influencer with Popular.  I went to my 10th high school reunion and two of the attendees though my husband was a classmate and not me.  When he told them he grew up in Indiana and that I was their classmate they actually said to him “are you sure”?

So, whenever JMM brags on her daughters (and in someway herself) I wonder if her kids are all that or are they special because mom is on tv 

And let me add the I haven’t attended another reunion since!

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

MM's children are perfect.  Absolutely perfect.  They love each other, they're sassy, they're beautiful, they're successful, they're athletic and anything out of line they do is considered "cute" by mom.

And, singers, too.

The Schlesinger Sisters - "Can't Help Falling In Love"

Cristina Milian-Schlesinger - "Put Your Records On"

Cristina Milian-Schlesinger - "Unwritten"

Alexandra Schlesinger - "Weightless"

Alexandra Schlesinger - "Out Here on my Own"

Alexandra Schlesinger - "Corre"

Sofia Schlesinger

Read:

'The People's Court' Judge Marilyn Milian Is A Proud Mom To Three Lookalike Daughters: “We Are Breeding Three Super Judges”

Edited by Bazinga
  • Surprise 3

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Bazinga said:

And, singers, too.

Wow! Very nice. I guess they ARE perfect in every way.

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

As for the cases on 5-22-20:

Can JM please leave these 'shocking family secrets' for Dr. Phil ? She is supposed to be a Judge (or mediator), not a family therapist. Please stick to the legalities of the case and stop exploiting these young people for ratings. A month ago, we had the young man who found out his grandmother died while taping an episode, yesterday we have the big family secret that the brother sexually abused the sister. If I want to see this exploitation, I'd tune in to Dr. Phil each day - but I purposely don't. Stick to the case and the facts presented - we don't need to dig deeper and ask 'where's dad in the picture?'  Dad was never brought up, and is not part of the legal suit. 

 

As for the 59 year old man and the 27 year old Kim Kardashian Clone. It's so nice to see JM laugh and giggle along with the Defendant and reward her in the end for despicable behavior. In a three month period, he 'gifted' her thousands of dollars, and how much did she 'gift back' in return ? JM didn't ask that question (Judge Judy always does). If they had reached the 'gifting' stage in their relationship, how did the defendant reciprocate ? Yet JM was so impressed with how she took advantage of the older man, she didn't care about the legalities of the case. Thie Kardashian Clone was her hero, as she encompassed all the morals of younger women everywhere. 

But I couldn't help wondering -  would this have played out the same if it was a 59 year old woman suing a 27 year old muscle stud ?  Would JM be giggling and laughing along with him if a older woman was ripped off by his charms and seduction? Would she be cheering him on with 'you go stud muffin!' if the plaintiff was a 59 year old woman ?  I think not. 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

Can JM please leave these 'shocking family secrets' for Dr. Phil ? She is supposed to be a Judge (or mediator), not a family therapist. Please stick to the legalities of the case and stop exploiting these young people for ratings.

Seriously - when the mom said it and even after that daughter said it was ok, I just felt like they should not have included  that in broadcast.  A bridge too far...and I think mom would have won anyways.  And even if she didn't, the cost of a used mountain bike would have been worth not exploiting your daughter. 

Regarding the taxi guy and the gold digger, I thought he should have at least gotten the original $1200 back.  The D was reprehensible.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

As for the cases on 5-22-20:

Can JM please leave these 'shocking family secrets' for Dr. Phil ? She is supposed to be a Judge (or mediator), not a family therapist. Please stick to the legalities of the case and stop exploiting these young people for ratings. A month ago, we had the young man who found out his grandmother died while taping an episode, yesterday we have the big family secret that the brother sexually abused the sister. If I want to see this exploitation, I'd tune in to Dr. Phil each day - but I purposely don't. Stick to the case and the facts presented - we don't need to dig deeper and ask 'where's dad in the picture?'  Dad was never brought up, and is not part of the legal suit. 

It appeared that just before the abuse was mentioned, the mother may have asked the girl if it was okay, and the girl said yes.  As a result, that girl was validated in front of millions of people, and brother was shown to be a piece of shit who doesn't "deserve" any of "his stuff"; JM laid it out that he was just being a vindictive snowflake.  Good luck getting a real job, Bozo.

I was abused (continually) as a child.  While going through therapy as an adult, it made my heart soar to hear, "You did not deserve this.  What he did was 100% wrong.  It is amazing that you have chosen to live a joyful life in spite of what happened to you."

I kind of felt the sister may have felt a little bit of that heart-soaring experience yesterday.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, VartanFan said:

Regarding the taxi guy and the gold digger, I thought he should have at least gotten the original $1200 back.  The D was reprehensible.

They were both reprehensible, amoral and despicable, IMO. He, who is way old enough to have more sense, made an investment for a future pay-off. It didn't happen. People often lose their money making risky investments. As for the 1200$ he gave for "Rebecca", def denies she ever agreed to pay it back if the phantom did not. He has no proof, so tough.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, VartanFan said:

Seriously - when the mom said it and even after that daughter said it was ok, I just felt like they should not have included  that in broadcast.  A bridge too far...and I think mom would have won anyways.  And even if she didn't, the cost of a used mountain bike would have been worth not exploiting your daughter. .  

When they went there I stopped watching...... I felt son had already lost, and this was not something I cared to watch

2 hours ago, AZChristian said:

It appeared that just before the abuse was mentioned, the mother may have asked the girl if it was okay, and the girl said yes.  As a result, that girl was validated in front of millions of people..... I kind of felt the sister may have felt a little bit of that heart-soaring experience yesterday.

Yes, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a therapist would be pleased that she was able to verbalize the abuse (though, as I said, not sure what she said as I stopped watching).

Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Since the despicable son was the plaintiff, the time to refuse to go to court should have been before the mother agreed to go on TPC.     However, my guess is the daughter was ready for the brother's abuse to come out, and the mother realized that.     I suspect that the mother didn't want to prosecute when the abuse happened, to spare her daughter having to testify in court, and being cross examined.   

Also, since the plaintiff was a juvenile, I'm sure his record would not be found by a background check.   So this coming out in court is the only way people would be warned about him. 

However, not pressing charges means that the brother never had to face what he did.    I don't blame the defendant's husband for leaving when nothing happened to the plaintiff for assaulting his sister.   I wonder if the husband that left was the plaintiff's father?  I think the son said that a report was filed, but nothing ever happened after that (I might not be remembering it correctly).  I wonder if the father left because nothing was going to be done about the son, and what he did?  Of course, I'm not positive about what the awful son said.     I bet that the mother and sister will have to get restraining orders against him, he seemed seriously fixated on both of them. 

 

 It may have been awful for the daughter to say what happened, but now people know what a monster the brother is.    

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

However, not pressing charges means that the brother never had to face what he did.    I don't blame the defendant's husband for leaving when noting happened to the plaintiff for assaulting his sister.   I wonder if the husband that left was the plaintiff's father?   It may have been awful for the daughter to say what happened, but now people know what a monster the brother is.    

I think I heard that the jerk WAS prosecuted as a juvenile and it was after that that the father left.  I had the feeling that he wanted the kid to have his toenails ripped out while an electrical wire was activated to his testicles, but that Mama had perhaps intervened out of a mistaken sense that he was "young" and "shouldn't have his life ruined for a mistake."  Again, this is JUST what I felt in my gut as they described what happened.  Mom since seems to have learned what a huge mistake SHE made.

The daughter and mom seemed very close, so she has had to deal with the residual pain of having mom not turn on the electricity to son's gonads.  (Can you tell I'm not very tolerant of children who are not protected by their parents?)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, SRTouch said:

When they went there I stopped watching...... I felt son had already lost, and this was not something I cared to watch

Yes, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a therapist would be pleased that she was able to verbalize the abuse (though, as I said, not sure what she said as I stopped watching).

Yes.  A thousand times yes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I guess it was a new episode this morning, but it was bizarre.     A man wanted his dog back fro the ex-girlfriend, but she said only if he paid for her iPhone (over $1k).    He claims she wouldn't tell him the price for the dog, and then claims the dog was killed in a car accident, by dog stomping on the window button, and jumping out (I think that was it) at 70 mph.    There are no police reports.  

Plaintiff claimed defendant sold the dog, but this was so ridiculous.    I feel sorry for the dog, but both litigants are idiots.   

Then there is the man who had a co-worker working on his car for some long time, defendant parked the car, but then the car disappeared, it never reported stolen by either litigant.    Then car was impounded, and fees are up to $6,000 or so by now.    This case was too stupid to watch, so I barely saw any of it.    Plaintiff, car owner didn't get anything.    

Then there's the rerun of the old goat who married some woman from Colombia, imported her and her daughter, they were happy for six months, then everything went boom.    Woman suddenly said she has to sleep alone, right after she gets a job as a bartender.   

Then plaintiff drops bombshell, and says that woman lied on immigration forms saying she was single, but she's still married to some man in Colombia.  ( I'm guessing that her bartending money went to import the husband, or some other guy, and when he arrived, then she didn't need the plaintiff any longer).      I'm betting his first call after the divorce attorney, was ICE about the false paperwork.    I have to laugh at Judge M saying it's obvious to her that the marriage was a love match.    My view, it was all a scam by the woman. 

I hope the woman realizes that if she's convicted of domestic violence against the man, that she will soon be seeing Colombia again.   

The plaintiff said something about the other assault case against the wife, and the divorce case are still going on, so I wonder how the DV case came out?   I thought the plaintiff was an idiot for marrying, and importing the woman, but I suspect what he said about her was true.   I think she did wreck the car radio, ruin the key, and threaten to stab him.  I wonder who the soon-to-be-ex wife was running out to JFK to pickup? 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I guess it was a new episode this morning, but it was bizarre.     A man wanted his dog back fro the ex-girlfriend, but she said only if he paid for her iPhone (over $1k).    He claims she wouldn't tell him the price for the dog, and then claims the dog was killed in a car accident, by dog stomping on the window button, and jumping out (I think that was it) at 70 mph.    There are no police reports.  

Plaintiff claimed defendant sold the dog, but this was so ridiculous.    I feel sorry for the dog, but both litigants are idiots.   

Didn't make it past the intro - but, 😨 could tat lady have worn a shorter outfit! - anyway, I zipped straight to hallterview (another 30+ minute case) - apparently, for some odd reason, MM decided not to award P $7500 in potential profits from breeding missing dog, but she does award value of dog, $2500 to P - however, this was partially offset since he owed over a grand to tat lady - net award was $1450

Quote

Then there is the man who had a co-worker working on his car for some long time, defendant parked on the street, and car disappeared, never reported stolen by either litigant.    Then car was impounded, and fees are up to $1,000 or so by now.    This case was too stupid to watch, so I barely saw any of it.    Plaintiff, car owner didn't get anything.   

Didn't watch this one either - though I did have it playing in the background during lunch - apparently P had non-running junker towed to co-workers place to be fixed up in buddy's spare time - D had clunker for 1 1/2 - 2 years, but says eventually thing was ready to be picked up - problem was, D had a 1-car wide driveway, so he parked it on street - not sure how (intro says car stolen and later towed, but apparently car wasn't registered  so maybe car towed from in front of D's house) but car ends up impounded - and there it sat, racking up impound fees until it currently would take over 6 grand to get it out........ not sure what was said, but apparently a lot, since this was yet another 30 minute case, when I listened to ruling MM was saying D did nothing wrong, so owes nothing for getting heap out of impound - case dismissed

Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/21/2020 at 6:34 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Personally, I think JM should have tossed the plaintiff the minute he mimed playing a sad violin as D was babbling on.

 

On 5/21/2020 at 7:12 PM, ThePurpleArcher said:

In the car deal gone wrong case some observations:

1.  Upon realizing he was losing the case rather rapidly, the Plaintiff (Mr. Ortiz) muttered "I shoulda taken care of things 'my way' ".  Sounds like a thug threat, and JM doesn't question him about it. Hmmm. I;m afraid for the defendant since the P appeared quite unstable as the case was going down.

Oooh, I missed both of these as I was folding laundry as I watched.  P totally looked like he was going to blow a head gasket.

 

I liked how in one of these cases, JM said that "phones are not just for taking pictures of your food," so she's moved past the "nasty picture" spiel.

 

"Plumber, he hardly knew her!"  JFC Levin, enough with these already!!!!!!!!! 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, aemom said:

"Plumber, he hardly knew her!"  JFC Levin, enough with these already!!!!!!!!! 

I started watching Sons of Anarchy (yeah, I know but it's like crack. I know it's bad and I'll regret it later but it's addictive) and in one episode some attention-seeking DA puts a sensational/not factual article in a newspaper. Someone else says he saw it and that "It would make Harvey Levin proud." His scumminess is renowned and part of popular culture. Your legacy, Levin, you tiny little POS! Actually, I'm sure he would be thrilled at that.

Today's first case: We heard Def explain why she broke up with lover-boy plaintiff. She went through his phone and his social media and "I seen stuff that was disrespected towards me." Nope. No way. I found my "Off button". Maybe you wouldn't be such a victim of "disrespected" if you knocked off buying all the exterior decoration, got an education and some self-respect? Whatever.

The next idiot with his 14-year old wrecked car wasn't much better. He collects an insurance payment for the thing after someone hit it, but puts the money in his pocket and doesn't get it fixed. He gives it to some mechanic friend of his to fix whenever he felt like it. It remains at Def's house for nearly two years and the registration lapses. Def has it in his driveway, his yard and on the street because it's not his job to check that P is compliant with registration. It gets stolen while it's parked between his and his wife's car (both of which were left) in the driveway, so as JM concluded, someone really really wanted it badly. No one calls the police. Ever. Plaintifff doesn't, and even though it's his heap he thinks def should have called them. It got tickets and got towed from wherever it ended up, so P thinks D owes him 5K. The total bill for the thing, which seems to have gone to car heaven,  is 6K. Obviously, he gets zero. Boring, and the stupidity was excruciating.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff, car owner didn't get anything.

And rightly so. He was trying to make someone else pay for his negligence in not renewing the registration or tags. Another case that did not need to take so much screen time.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/23/2020 at 8:23 AM, AngelaHunter said:

Wow! Very nice. I guess they ARE perfect in every way.

Lord, she's had this gig a LONG time.  I remember when she was pregnant with the youngest one.  

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

That roommate plaintiff was a stealth creep - looking like a church girl in court but being a nightmare roommate.  She seemed rational at first, but that calm demeanor was hiding a mess that like to walk around naked in someone else's apartment...  I wouldn't want her sitting on MY chairs/sofa.  She was also petty as hell calling child services, not paying rent (maybe), destroying cameras, because she felt she was owed an apology.  She was a whiner to boot, bringing up her diabetes, hernia problems and having to stay in a hotel because of stress.  39 years old!  Immature.

2nd Case:  Two words:  Plaid pants.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, patty1h said:

That roommate plaintiff was a stealth creep - looking like a church girl in court but being a nightmare roommate. 

Interesting. So demurely dressed and soft-spoken even as she relates that (in my words) instead of attacking the def, she decided to take the high road and just destroy her property. That makes me think that physical altercations may be her usual reactions to disagreements(why mention it otherwise?) and she held herself back here. Her self-control goes only so far though, so the camera - which as JM said, she could have disconnected, covered with tape or turned to face the wall - gets dropped in a bucket of water.

Plaintiff is so thin-skinned even in middle age that someone asking her to clean the sink drain causes such monumental offense and rage that she no longer will speak a word to def.  She thinks for that heinous act against her she should get back every cent she paid for the 6 or 7 months she lived there and live for free, unlike the rest of us. She also thinks she need not pay for the last month she was there because def. gave her notice to get out. She wants all the money she spent on the hotel she chose to move into, as well as compensation for all the pain and suffering she endured, in spite of her criminal mischief. She calls child protective services on def after she gets the boot because the neglect and abuse she witnessed only started bothering her then and not for the proceeding 7 months. I don't know if these accusations are true, and they very well could be,  but if they are no one should ignore it for 6 months. As for the running around nude - ew and wow, I don't even do that in my own house, never mind in some apartment of someone I don't even know. Muchacha loca indeed.

Def annoyed me just as much. She uses the ol' SSM argument, as though it's just an act of fate that she decided to squirt out 3 kids, one after the other with no baby daddies hanging around. Couples with double incomes seldom feel they can afford three kids these days. She needs a roommate since she can't afford to pay for all the expenses for all these kids. Her answer is to move some total stranger in with all these little children of hers and to leave that stranger with them when she goes out. Birth control might have been a better option.  As for her troubles with P, well, D picked someone with mental problems and invited her in. Def gets awarded over 2K, for unpaid rent and the call to protective services. Plaintiff - zero.

JM tries to counsel them, I think before she knew their ages. At 39 and 32, not much is going to change either one of them or improve their behavior.

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

2nd Case:  Two words:  Plaid pants.

One word: Skipped.

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, patty1h said:

2nd Case:  Two words:  Plaid pants.

Let me add a few more:  ten pounds of boloney in a five pound bag 

Nekkid roomie should pair up with nekkid renter who likes to do intimate cardio on the couch while landlord secretly films. 

And I don’t know if it’s my suspicious mind, age related experience or a little of both but the Plaintiff in the Rogue U-Haul case didn’t give his license to the defendant for only $30. Something tells me he was looking for a little of his own cardio action with the SSM of three for all his troubles. 

Why else would her “man friend” threaten to burn and throw the damn U-Haul off a cliff?  Mr. Man Friend probably dampened planned appreciation from defendant to plaintiff. 
 

Unless he has stock in Penske rental trucks. 
 

Edited by PsychoKlown
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Something tells me he was looking for a little of his own cardio action with the SSM of three for all his troubles.

Ya think? I didn't watch so don't know, but maybe he's into this thing I heard of only recently (damn you, internet!) called "squashing". 😮

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Let me add a few more:  ten pounds of boloney in a five pound bag 

It never ceases to amaze me how on these court shows so many litigants (usually women) believe that stuffing their numerous bulges in two-sizes-too-small clothes is the best look for them (or for anyone as a matter of fact).

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

It never ceases to amaze me how on these court shows so many litigants (usually women) believe that stuffing their numerous bulges in two-sizes-too-small clothes is the best look for them (or for anyone as a matter of fact).

My late father called it putting a two ton turd in a one ton container!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Quote

Def annoyed me just as much. She uses the ol' SSM argument, as though it's just an act of fate that she decided to squirt out 3 kids, one after the other with no baby daddies hanging around. Couples with double incomes seldom feel they can afford three kids these days. She needs a roommate since she can't afford to pay for all the expenses for all these kids. Her answer is to move some total stranger in with all these little children of hers and to leave that stranger with them when she goes out. 

Preach.  As D was talking, I’m wondering why MM isn’t stopping her and being like...you had those kids, you chose to invite some stranger into your home with 3 kids!  She would follow up with some stuff that tells me she’s not being honest - I stay with my mom sometimes to spend the night with the kids (I thought the reason you had to have a roommate was the 3 kids that lived there), then ‘I called the cops about a window but...oops, the door was unlocked.” (You seriously didn’t try the doorknob before calling the cops about a window you didn’t really know was open or not?).

If you’re inviting a nutty stranger into your house, you don’t get to complain about needing to safeguard your stuff (put a better lock on the door).  I also don’t think you can say the lunatic canNOT have a lock on hers.  I have an idea...get a smaller apartment that you can afford.  

  • Like 4
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, VartanFan said:

If you’re inviting a nutty stranger into your house, you don’t get to complain about needing to safeguard your stuff (put a better lock on the door).  I also don’t think you can say the lunatic canNOT have a lock on hers.  I have an idea...get a smaller apartment that you can afford.  

Once upon a time, I seem to remember hearing a litigant saying that it was against their local fire codes to have locks on interior doors........... not sure if that's the case here, and never understood it if it was true - I mean, your everyday hollow core door is not that much of a deterrent if a first responder needs to get through. .......... me, I'd be installing a locking know BEFORE the stranger moved in, not buying a camera later when I decide not to trust the weirdo who refuses to talk 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, VartanFan said:

If you’re inviting a nutty stranger into your house, you don’t get to complain about needing to safeguard your stuff (put a better lock on the door).

Although the nutty plaintiff in that case knows how to present herself to look all respectable and civilised. Which means that the truth about her character could only be detected by seeing her in close quarters every day, or by hearing the whole story of her abusive behaviour through MM's questioning.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/25/2020 at 8:12 AM, CrazyInAlabama said:

He claims she wouldn't tell him the price for the dog, and then claims the dog was killed in a car accident, by dog stomping on the window button, and jumping out (I think that was it) at 70 mph.   

When she was telling the story of the dog getting out the window at a high rate of speed on the freeway, you could almost SEE her trying to remember the details of the tragic newspaper story that she read about and based this bullshit on.

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Today we got a case for which there must a template. It must include:

Pathetic, lonely, sad, desperate woman trolls the FB Meat Market to find a warm body and someone whose standards are just as low as hers. She's here in court because she wants back all the money she showered on her new paramour to keep him around.

Unattractive, inarticulate, uneducated, brokeass idiot Def ("I dint ask her for nuttin'") loser posts himself on the meat market because he has some bills to pay. He may not know much but he knows the number of desperate women exceeds the number of brokeass losers/users.

It's a love match! "Down the road"(meaning two weeks after they meet), Romeo starts whining to his desperate hookup that he can't pay his rent, his electric bill etc. It just casually comes up in conversation when caring, big-hearted, benevolent desperate woman wants to know why he seems so stressed. Yes, whenever I was in a new relationship, I always started talking about my financial woes asap.

Pathetic P offers to pay his bills, but not only that, she insists on buying him a new phone and putting it on her plan. She was just so disturbed seeing him with a cracked phone and thinks he deserves the best. No man of hers should ever have the heartbreak of a cracked phone! He told her, "No, no - a thousand times no!" because he's a big strong young guy who can take care of his own business, but well, he took the money anyway. She would leave it on his kitchen counter, so what choice did he have?

In the not-surprising category, we find out this loser has an ex-girlfriend who was also willing to fund him. New g/f finds out ex-g/f will be at some New Year's bash and goes "all crazy" on the much sought-after hunk def. His bills have been paid and he has a new phone (for which P is still paying 😆, so the big romance is over. Time for P to hit FB again, I guess.

JM wants to know why the hell P started financing the loser after a couple of weeks? "Tee hee!" is "basically" the answer. Would I expose to the world how terminally desperate I am for the grand total of 490$? No, but plaintiff, who sees something to giggle about in all this, has no problem with it.

Loser def plays the "My dad is dying and being here deprives me of precious hours I could be spending at his side" card to countersue. It seems his heartbreak will ease if he gets enough money. He says he went back to work (finally) two weeks previously, so shouldn't he also be suing his employers for keeping him from his dad's bedside?

Bunny-boiler P makes at least 100 calls to Don Juan's phone (that she funded) and threatens him if he doesn't pay her back. "You don't know who you're dealing with". Um, obviously he did. Gee, you'd think she'd be used to rejection by now, but I guess not.  P is awarded the amount that Adonis agrees he owed, some 2K. I think.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, VartanFan said:

 I have an idea...get a smaller apartment that you can afford.  

Yes, but when you squat and squirt out three kids "Oops. It just HAPPENED" and don't seem, at 32, to have ever had a  handle on how to prevent that, then you need a big place!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Pathetic P offers to pay his bills, but not only that, she insists on buying him a new phone and putting it on her plan. She was just so disturbed seeing him with a cracked phone and thinks he deserves the best. No man of hers should ever have the heartbreak of a cracked phone! 

IIRC, his response was, "She wanted to Facetime with me, and she didn't want to see me with cracks all over my face.  She wanted to see my whole face."

I must confess to not doing Facetime.  BUT . . . if HIS phone is cracked, wouldn't SHE looked cracked on his phone, but his camera (if it's working) would pick up his face and transmit it looking pristine, wouldn't it?

  • Like 3
  • Useful 1
  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

IIRC, his response was, "She wanted to Facetime with me, and she didn't want to see me with cracks all over my face.  She wanted to see my whole face."

I must confess to not doing Facetime.  BUT . . . if HIS phone is cracked, wouldn't SHE looked cracked on his phone, but his camera (if it's working) would pick up his face and transmit it looking pristine, wouldn't it?

I have no idea about any of this dumb shit, but - if his pallid, weak-chinned, sad-sack face was the face YOU dearly needed to see (and who wouldn't?)to warm your heart and remind you of the love you shared, I just know you would want to gaze upon a whole and uncracked version of it. Don't try to deny it.

Maybe he's not such a purist and didn't mind seeing her face slightly cracked.

  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Maybe he's not such a purist and didn't mind seeing her face slightly cracked.

Well, if his ex-girlfriend was going to come to a family get-together, maybe that's a clue that he had so many fish ("Plenty of Fish") on the hook that they all looked alike on his cracked phone . . . and we KNOW he wasn't particular.

  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

When she was telling the story of the dog getting out the window at a high rate of speed on the freeway, you could almost SEE her trying to remember the details of the tragic newspaper story that she read about and based this bullshit on.

 

 

I thought she got it from watching the movie Vacation with Chevy Chase.

  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, AZChristian said:

. and we KNOW he wasn't particular.

How particular do you have to be when you're just looking for a temporary wallet, though?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, AZChristian said:

I must confess to not doing Facetime.  BUT . . . if HIS phone is cracked, wouldn't SHE looked cracked on his phone, but his camera (if it's working) would pick up his face and transmit it looking pristine, wouldn't it?

Do not confuse his well thought out story with a little thing like THE FACTS.

  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post

I think the ex-Rikers correction officer was drinking and pilling and hiding money and just forgetting what she did with it.  JM's points were valid - why didn't she ever say "I saw you!" in any of her many texts?  Also, the issue with the surveillance cameras not catching the plaintiff stealing didn't help her side either.  The first time $$ was missing in my home I would have made sure that those cameras were in working order 24/7.  She has a broken TV, scratched glasses, a rubber-less squeegee(!), a big leaking fish tank and says "I believe he did it".  It looks like she has her daughter drinking her Kool-aid, as she's there propping up mom's wild accusations.  

Ex-CO better watch her booze and pill intake in that big house and make sure to stash all of her cash in that in-home safe from now on.  

Edited by patty1h
  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with you patty1h however, part of me believes he was gaslighting her.

  • Like 4

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