Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Lillybee

The People's Court

Recommended Posts

"I've been drinking and taking pills for YEARS" def says, not without a little pride but she didn't mention right away that she tokes up too, probably all at the same time. She squirrels her cash away all over the house (another one who doesn't believe in banks or has good reason not to use them), writes herself deposit slips then puts a wad of money in a leopard-print bag and drops it in a pantry, and who knows where else? Then she tokes, and drinks and pills herself and can't remember where the hell she put her "deposits."

Plaintiff, who is kind of a scummy, icky character, is accused not only of stealing all her money (which she likes to leave in a bag hanging on a kitchen chair) but of destroying a squeegee, of punching her TV and of crawling under her giant fishtank to remove some little rubber dots so the tank will leak. I seriously doubt P, who is here with his daddy (who is either long-suffering or proud of his boy) has the brains or forethought to sabotage the fishtank. Def has evidence on camera of P rummaging through her purse (I believe he did) but well, no, she has no evidence since mastermind criminal P removed the harddrive from her camera. Even though she "busted him" in the act of ransacking her purse, she never mentioned it to him.

Then we learn P has priors for possession, assault and selling drugs. Just the kind of person I'd want living in my home. But he did join D in the toking up, so maybe it was all worth it to her. I wonder if D lost her job at Riker's Island for her booze and pill habit? Who knows? P wants  money for her defamation of his sterling character. Don't think so! How much character is there to defame when you have all these drug/assault priors?

Kids: Don't drink, take pills and toke up. At least, not all at the same time!

D seemed in need of some sort of chemical or liquid fortification here. Instead of trying to back up Mom's ravings, D's daughter should be encouraging her to cut down on the pills and booze and to put her money in a BANK, since someone who spends so much time in an altered state can't know what she does with the cash. D lives in a BIG house, so can't expected to remember where all her little cash stores got left. Maybe get a smaller house so you won't have to have felons living with you? Oh, well. She owes P his security deposit and nothing else.

Then we had P suing D for the townhouse she bought from him and him not disclosing that a tenting of the property was needed for the elimination of a termite infestation. I'm sorry plaintiff lost in seeking recovery for the cost because the smirking and grinning of the oily def. really bugged me. JM was very annoyed as well with his attitude. He knew exactly what he was doing. 

Finally, where in the hell is Levin holed up these days? In a circus tent?

 

 

levin0528_170553.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Finally, where in the hell is Levin holed up these days? In a circus tent?

 

I'm not sure what they use for these at home segments, but the tech to have custom backgrounds has spread rapidly, especially for TV production. LivePD brought those custom backgrounds in a few weeks ago, and TPC got it last week/this week it seems. 

Basically it's like they have a green screen behind them and they put the TPC logo behind him; but you don't actually need a green screen. 

  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Taeolas said:

LivePD brought those custom backgrounds in a few weeks ago, and TPC got it last week/this week it seems. 

I think this suits him better.

 

 

levin0528_170553.jpg

  • Laugh 11

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Then we had P suing D for the townhouse she bought from him and him not disclosing that a tenting of the property was needed for the elimination of a termite infestation. I'm sorry plaintiff lost in seeking recovery for the cost because the smirking and grinning of the oily def. really bugged me. JM was very annoyed as well with his attitude. He knew exactly what he was doing. 

That case was very interesting, and I could see MM was not thrilled having to follow the "letter of the law".  Which she did, instead of being all TeeVee Court touchy feely.

Tots sucked for the plaintiff, but it was an excellent lesson in contract law.  It would have been awesome to see Smarmy Def lose, but there's your B&W technicality that had to prevail.

I almost think P had a heads up that she didn't quite explore, pre-closing.  Then again, I feel her...a fast purchase and the flurry of papers at closing is very daunting.  Not convinced that she doesn't still have an action against the Title Guru.  At $1900., Love your house anyway, I guess it's time to let it go.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/26/2020 at 9:05 PM, 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).

Giant fat arms without sleeves...ugh. no shaming,  I have giant fat arms, too!  I just don't inflict them on the public!  No one wants to see that...

And my personal favorite...really, skinny tiny lips with harsh pink or red lipstick.  No! Honey!  Just don't!  

One more!  You're going on TeeVee FFS!  Hit those roots with the Clairol or Loreal or at least some damn shampoo!  $10 and 45 minutes!  Jeez

Edited by zillabreeze
  • Like 4
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

Regarding the condo sale case . . . 

Anytime I've sold a house, the contract required disclosure of any "less-than-desirable" facts about the property.  One time, while speaking casually with my realtor during a tour of the house, we went out into the yard.  I told him to make sure my dog didn't get out into the yard because if she barked even a little bit, the neighbor directly behind us would scream obscenities at us.  (He once reported my dog barking to the HOA when we - including her - were out of town.)  The realtor said, "We have to include that in the contract.  We have to disclose all potential problems with the property."

So why didn't the defendant have to disclose his knowledge about the assessment and the tenting?????

Confession:  I literally slept through this entire case, and am basing my question on a combination of what hubby told me and what I've read here.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

34 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

So why didn't the defendant have to disclose his knowledge about the assessment and the tenting?????

I'm not sure (no legal beagle am I) but I think it came to very specific words and terms being used that may have meant the seller might go along with the tenting but it wasn't obligatory? I'm sure better minds here will have a better answer.

I felt for the plaintiff too. I don't know if this is her first house, but she'll find the 1900$ is just a drop in the bucket in the cost of home maintenence and repair.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I once helped a friend of mine who had just become president of his condo board fill out forms sent out by the civil law notary handling the sale of a unit. They asked for a lot of questions, as mandated by law in Québec, and one of them dealt with special assessments; I am not sure if it covered upcoming ones that had not been confirmed yet, but I believe that all possible liabilites had ot be disclosed. There were none to indicate in our case.

The law may be different in the jurisdiction the case came from and disclosure may need to be only retrospective, and only by the seller. On the other hand, the prospective buyer could have inquired directly with the HOA if there were any incoming special fees or work being discussed.

14 hours ago, Taeolas said:

the tech to have custom backgrounds has spread rapidly, especially for TV production.

As I said before, production companies have decided to make these home broadcasts look less slick than possibe, to avoid accusations of having a hidden crew of technicians setting things up, thus violating the social distancing rules. Many who used to have a room in their house as a background have switched to a computer-generated one, because people started making nasty critiques of their decor, of their choice of reading material in the bookcases and in some cases attempted through architectural detective work to locate their real home address. Other simply choose a completely blank and empty room.

As for the drinking and pill-popping former corrections officer, don't these people get regularly tested at work? Considering her demenanor and her frank admission that she has been using for years, I think there is a very strong possibility that she misplaces her money or forgets where she hides it. I snickered at her overdramatic word choices, for example "he fled" to describe the guy simply getting out of the room or "I busted him" as if she was leading an Interpol raid. She can't even maintain her surveillance cameras in working order!

Plaintiff was lucky she did not get even kookier; I would have been immediately warned off by her behaviour and would never have rented from her.

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I'm not sure (no legal beagle am I) but I think it came to very specific words and terms being used that may have meant the seller might go along with the tenting but it wasn't obligatory? I'm sure better minds here will have a better answer.

I felt for the plaintiff too. I don't know if this is her first house, but she'll find the 1900$ is just a drop in the bucket in the cost of home maintenence and repair.

It was the "exact wording" that went against the P.  IIRC, my house disclosure was very specific. Mold? Termites? Foundation Issues?, Etc.  It doesn't require seller to expound on "maybes".

One thing I did to find out about neighbors before I made an offer...I went to the house on Saturday night and cut the engine and lights in front and & alley and rolled down my windows.   Amazing how a hood changes after dark.  Dodged a bullet on an otherwise nice looking area.

Yeah, if $1900 is gonna send her crying, homeownership has plenty of surprises in store for her.

I could never, ever live with an HOA or share walls with someone.  But dear dawg, a detached home will bleed you dry....roof, fences, sprinklers, tree trimming...it never stops!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I skipped the latest "Wig War" case, since they bore me as much as do roommate utility bills  and broken cell phones and I lasted only long enough to find out that if you get tired of your wig, you could probably sell it for parts, the way you do with old beater cars!

In the second  case, we hear so much about "Bo" the real estate agent. He had so much to say and write and do, but we do not get to see Bo. I really wanted him to be here! P and D quote the Word of Bo constantly and offer up his texts, but... no Bo for us.

JM is very sympathetic to P whose new hubby needed an emergency triple bypass. I did not like her, personally. She's so distressed and upset at her husband's condition and surgery(as we all would be) but that didn't stop her from trying to rake in 5K for stuff of hers that was worth maybe 2K. Hey, why not try and get all you can? She and D had nothing - everything is in cash -  in writing concerning him supposedly cleaning up and moving all her stuff from the Tuff Shed(is that what she called it?) from NV to AZ, or maybe it was the other way around. I don't know. Other than Bo's texts, there is nothing in writing about what should be done. D says he had his own health issues (of course) and P never provided him a key for the Tuff Shed so he just left it with all the patio furniture in it. P clearly texted "BO" the location of the key but apparently D just thought, "Aw, screw it." New homeowners claimed it all as their own, after being stuck with it for months. JM picks up that P wants compensation for top-of-the-line swivel chair when pics show hers was Home Depot's cheapest model. P grins.

D speaks in incomprehensible and meaningless babblespeak. He says he was doing the P a favour, but reluctantly admits this "favour" cost her 2100$.  That's the only thing he said I could understand. JM couldn't make sense of his ramblings either.

Anyway, JM decides the patio stuff is worth 2100$, not 5K and that's what P gets.

12 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

But dear dawg, a detached home will bleed you dry....roof, fences, sprinklers, tree trimming...it never stops!

YES! It never stops for sure, and it really hurts at the time - a new roof does not give pleasure - but at least the money spent comes back to you.

Edited by AngelaHunter
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I thought the second Judge M figured out from the pictures that the patio furniture (which apparently disappeared from the yard) was old, and cheap.   Then,  the plaintiff was trying to get top of the line replacements, then she should have been booted.    I think she got $2100 for sympathy, not for lost property.    I don't blame the new owners for trashing her junk, most contracts say whatever is there after closing belongs to the new owner.   They probably had to pay someone to haul it away, so the new owners should have received the money.  

Real estate disclosure requirements depend on the state.   There are still some states that don't have any type of disclosure required, that's why you get all of the termite, and other inspections before you buy. 

With condo or townhouse type of HOA properties, you have to worry about special assessments.    I've known people who opted for the low HOA assessment, and then they get the notice of special assessment, and it's not optional either.    In one case it paid for elevator replacement, and in another situation the foundation was faulty, and they had to jack up the building, and redo the garage, and foundations.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

the plaintiff was trying to get top of the line replacements, then she should have been booted.    I think she got $2100 for sympathy, not for lost property.

That award was totally undeserved, but the defendant managed to pull at JM's heartstrings and made her rule with her emotions not with her legal mind, which happens more and more often I think. If she continues on that trend, JM could turn into a female version of Corriero from Hot Bench.

At least this was not another silly wig case.

16 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

Yeah, if $1900 is gonna send her crying, homeownership has plenty of surprises in store for her.

I could never, ever live with an HOA or share walls with someone.  But dear dawg, a detached home will bleed you dry....roof, fences, sprinklers, tree trimming...it never stops!

Quite. I forgot to mention that when I helped my condo board president friend, one document that was included in what was provided to the prospective buyer is a lengthy analysis by a consultant of all repairs and maintenance work that will be required for the next 25 years, with costs and possible assessment scenarios to cover them (a recent legal requirement). It did not deter him from buying, and apparently he even read the document, something litigants on TPC would never bother to do, including this plaintiff from yesterday who really needed to do her own research prior to buying.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

this plaintiff from yesterday who really needed to do her own research prior to buying.

I think I ponied up about $300 for an indie inspector on this house.  He looked down the hallway and noticed paint of "a different sheen".  Come to find out, cracks over doors were hiding a slab leak foundation "shift".   Seller had to jackhammer the floor, carpet, tile to the tune of about 10k.  Sellers insurance paid before I closed.  $300 on me was tots well spent. 

Our litigants are so penny wise and pound foolish, that most of the time I don't feel much sympathy.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

YES! It never stops for sure, and it really hurts at the time - a new roof does not give pleasure - but at least the money spent comes back to you.

Except in North Texas Hail Country!  Insurance companies soak you every year, then act all shock and awed when the spring hail comes. Which it does, Like, basically, (LOL) every year.

What a beat down to get the roof replaced.  Nickle and diming, back & forth... Last year, I was agog at my stellar ability to find weather history data on The Google, whereas the insurance adjusters were completely flummoxed at how that works...

Ins: There was no hail in June.     

 Me: Yes, there was. I was hiding with the dogs in the tub while it came.

Ins: Prove it.

Me: Sends links to NOAA

Ins: Can't open links.

Me: Sends pictures of torn up roof.

Ins: How do we know that's hail?

Me: Have you seen my ample ass? Do you think I got on the roof and beat it up? How do you suppose those dents occured?

Ins: (Two weeks later). K. Well, maybe we should investigate....

That's just the preamble to an actual claim.  Then the fun starts.

  • Useful 1
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

I think I ponied up about $300 for an indie inspector on this house.  He looked down the hallway and noticed paint of "a different sheen".  Come to find out, cracks over doors were hiding a slab leak foundation "shift".   Seller had to jackhammer the floor, carpet, tile to the tune of about 10k.  Sellers insurance paid before I closed.  $300 on me was tots well spent. 

Our litigants are so penny wise and pound foolish, that most of the time I don't feel much sympathy.

I agree about hiring an INDEPENDENT inspector. Along with court tv, another diversion of mine is reno/flip shows. One thing I've learned watching those shows is that there can be ALL kinds of hell hidden under the surface. One problem with home inspectors is that they often are not permitted to look beneath the surface. Water or termite damage can be hidden under that new siding, and sometimes laws in your jurisdiction prohibit inspector peeking underneath - even though he is going to replace it. So ask what inspector can and can not inspect. I remember 1 show where prospective buyers chose a couple houses, and then the show host, IIRC Mike Holmes, did a full "Holmes inspection" while explaining a regular inspector couldn't remove this, or probably wouldn't have access to a infrared camera that shows heat loss, etc.

Other thing I did when I was looking to buy, was to talk to neighbors. If this lady had done that, she would have heard about the upcoming tenting and known to ask slippery seller that question. Dude won because he didn't actually lie, he just didn't tell the whole truth.

Also, talking to neighbors would give you a chance to screen for any crazies or wierdos......... I mean, if you knock and Gladys Kravitz comes to the door and starts talking about that Stevens family in the house across the street - just get back in your car and tell realtor no thanks (reference to Bewitched for any young whippersnappers reading) 

Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 6
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

What a beat down to get the roof replaced.  Nickle and diming, back & forth...

I just went through my first ins. claim, but with my deck that collapsed (the noise when it tore from the house and crashed to the ground aged me about 10 years) in March. It was very old and it had enough ice and snow on it to make a polar bear happy. It took my heat pump with it. I was shaking in my shoes that my ins. company wouldn't pay because the deck was so old and not kept clear of ice. This was in March so everything had to be done at arm's length.  All I can say is thank goodness for email and cell phones that can be used for things other than nasty pictures.

So I got both estimates but no one knew when contractors would be going back to work. Unlike so many of our dear litigants I got real contractors and NOT some guy I found on CL who stated in his ad "Need money bad" and offered to do it for a fraction of the other estimates as long as I gave him my HomeDepot card so he could buy a hammer and a saw. It was all so stressful. There was a lot of back and forth about various things but my ins. co paid the full  amount of the estimates for both jobs (over 11K) with no haggling over price which kind of surprised me. It was finally all finished last week. *massive sigh of relief*

10 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

Our litigants are so penny wise and pound foolish, that most of the time I don't feel much sympathy.

They're gamblers! They like to live on the edge with no car/house insurance and just wager the odds are in their favour. And why would anyone buying a 13-year-old car at midnight in a Walmart parking lot spend the 100$ it costs to get it checked out before buying it? They're just very trusting people. Can't fault that.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Quicky recaps of two long cases

  • Tenant case: landlord and tenant had a not so professional landlord/tenant relationship - landlord suing tenant over rent and damages - big bucks, too, like 5 grand IIRC - has some shakey/missing evidence - oh well, what he has is way better than the nothing she brought........  tenant way too tiring to listen to without FF - several times MM has to warn her to ANSWER the question - tenant has motor mouth syndrome - poor Douglas has to make multiple trips to show her pix, then has to go back because she was yakking away and didn't actually look the first time........ part of her defense is that landlord got drunk and nude & propositioned her drunk cousin in front of her - he denies story, but really wouldn't impact case except to make him look like a bigger scumbag - she probably wasted a good 15 minutes looking for text proof and either not finding any or text not proving what she says it says - landlord walks out with over 3 grand - might of gotten more if only he had bothered to bring along those before pix he claims to have
  • ebay sale: p says he sold jacket online, sent jacket before receiving payment, has proof D received jacket, but that D never paid wants $576....... D denies receiving jacket, sounds like multiple choice defense - order canceled, sent to wrong address, and agreed upon price was $76 not $576, oh, and not even me, he's got me confused with somebody else......... oh, and D wants over $500 in lost wages - ha! Like that ever works........ ok, pretty much same as first case with MM frustrated with litigants not listening and answering questions - oh, and she questioning WTH P trusted complete stranger to send payment and sent merchandise beforehand....... I'm totally confused as I zip ahead, but not interested enough to rewind and see who said what....... for those who actually watch, it may be funny, or at least the audience has a good laugh as MM tells D to let her read the freekin' texts....... when I start listening, sounds like MM is SO OVER both these litigants - P because he came to court without evidence intro said he has and D because he's can't shut up....... one of those cases where MM presses pause and gives P a week to find the evidence he should have come to court with........ hallterview has P saying no problem, he'll find the proof, and D moaning about how unfair everything going is, MM just not listening, but no worries, proof does exist so he'll win in the end....... nope, Harvey tells us P found his evidence and D loses
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Tenant case:

Here we have the wee plaintiff, who is a self-proclaimed "Good Samaritan" suing the crude, loud, rough, ignorant, mouthy, violent SSMO2 who has a voice like nails on a chalkboard. The GS gave her a bunch of money to help her out. She says it was all gifts. In the years I lived in apartments not once did my landlord shower money on me to help me with my bills. Poor me. Anyway, both of them were beyond irritating and JM had to ask each question at least 3 times to get any kind of answers. The rest of this tale SRTouch has covered very well - the drunken evening, "Diamond", frickin' social media slurs, the naked landlord and blah blah. SSMO2 has to pay for the broken doors, the ruined sink and the holes in the walls created when she and her beloved baby daddy had their violent brawls. She tries to blame some of it on her unfortunate 2-year-old. I'm sure this young lady (yeah) gave just as good as she got in the battles. I wouldn't give a rat's ass about that, except for two little children living with this vile cretin and her sperm donor and witnessing these disgusting goings-on. Yes, plaintiff has all the pics of the place before he rented it to his charity case, but well - not with him.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

ebay sale:

We have "Muppet Baby Love" (JM thought that handle was creepy and I agree)plaintiff who appeared not to have wiped his mouth after he drank a glass of milk before this case , suing the weirdly-bearded def for a 76$ jacket MBL was peddling on eBay. P is so dim he cancels the transaction after he mails the jacket. Looking at def's clothes, I can picture this jacket. P's case for the 76$ magically tranforms into over 500$ and whatever. D calls JM "Miss" for which he is spanked. I guess she didn't see him rolling eyes as she was speaking, over this case which "makes no sense" and I'm out.

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

20 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

The rest of this tale SRTouch has covered very well - the drunken evening, "Diamond", frickin' social media slurs, the naked landlord and blah blah.

Has anyone else noticed how many “naked” cases we’ve been viewing lately?   

Naked cardio guy on the rented house couch...video included.

Almost naked doughy, hairy tenant adopting a come-hither attitude to his landlady all the while she’s videotaping.

Naked tenant who ripped out video camera because, well, because she’s nutzoid.

Naked landlord in above referenced case.

And as I’m watching “Horse Ranch Tall Guy” case I just heard something about sexual activity, and a pornstar wife.  I’m sure the naked part will be discussed after the water pick commercial.

Whoa, Mr. Potato Head Rancher slapped his wife?  And he’s laughing about it.

No wonder the world is collapsing.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Defendant in the horse-napping caper needs to lay off the contouring pen. 

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post

That horse napping case was all kinds of sordid... I felt icky after hearing about X-rated photos and horseplay, but I laughed like a crazy person when the plaintiff started spilling his guts about him and his wife's nasty shenanigans and confessed that wifey was upset that he was tiny.  That whole ranch needs to be raided and all the horses re-homed to sane people.   

I agree that the defendant had an intense makeup/hairstyle combo going on.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Watching them drag out these cases to fill the hour so we have new material really makes me appreciate the editors of the show!

  • Like 5
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

'Nother 2 case day........ sorry @PsychoKlown nobody neekid, but something about oral sex in 1st case with litigant offering to show tape - zipped through that, and apparently MM refused to look - oh, and P cowboy in 1st case got slapped by on again off again wife off camera while waiting to be called for case

  • modern day cowboy suing over convoluted horse deal along with charges D is a low down serial horse thief - all in all a funny case, but I have no idea what litigants were trying to say - again MM has to continually rein in these two trying to get any sort of coherent answer to even simplest question - heck, at one point cowboy is going on about on 'she' this or that and MM has to ask which ''she' the she on/off again wife or the 'she' horse thief...... cowboy starts to talk about 'she' getting implants but MM doesn't want to hear - then the oral sex/porno pix/video talk which MM shut down PDQ (what I gather is wife told horse thief that cowboy has a tiny pecker so cowboy send video of wife performing oral sex on his not so teeny pecker - could have that wrong, I was laughing not really listening)........ anyway, D had 2 horses, a 20yo she wanted put out to pasture/retire and a young one she wanted to stable at dude's ranch....... they have convoluted deal where he gets old horse and can use it a little as long as he doesn't work it too hard, and she gets discount on boarding cost for young horse - things fall about, D thinks cowboy using old horse too much - she voids deal and  'steals' back the horses - then somehow she un-voids deal and cowboy has horses again - then she un-un-voids deal and steals horses a second time - then....... not sure, I gave up watching, not that funny after all - I guess on/off again wife got drunk and took horse for ride, somehow horse got loose maybe or maybe not hit by car - horse thief D strikes again - cowboy wants big bucks for board because D stopped paying even the discounted amount, and wants back money he paid towards purchase of horse that D stole...... cowboy gets tiny bit of what he asked for (less than 2 grand and asked for 10 grand) and horse thief gets none of her 10 grand countersuit
  • dude suing mechanic cuz his hoopty with 300,000miles on it blew the engine - P wants cost of engine replacement $2200 - zipped to decision, thinking I'd go back if it sounded interesting - it didn't, so I didn't - hoopty owner got half want he asked for, so MM must have decided mechanic screwed up, but also hoopty probably due to blow anyway so P doesn't get new/rebuilt engine for free
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

In the horse case, the defendant needs a makeup artist that doesn't do clown makeup, and what the hell are those moles or whatever on her face?   By the way, the defendant wouldn't qualify to ride the horse either.   The only thing that moves less than the defendant hair, is her face.  

So wifey or ex-wifey went to defendant's house to take care of defendant after butt and boob implants?   All three litigants in this case are a few sandwiches short of a picnic.  

Why can't we see the video of the wife slapping the husband in the waiting room?   

I noticed that Levin switched backgrounds, to one with the scales of Justice, and lots of gold. 

The rerun episode was the man who brought Mommy to court with him over a used car deal.    He's the fool that looked like he had a Beaver glued to his forehead, and the sides looked buzzed or shaved.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Why can't we see the video of the wife slapping the husband in the waiting room?   

I thought the husband slapped wifey. 

Personally I think they were auditioning for a reality show.  And on a totally serious note I also agree they should get those horses away from those three. I shudder to think what could (or already has) happened  

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I think this show needs a advisory warning at the beginning now. Who turned over some rocks and let these litigants slither out? Levin, was that you? "Sordid" doesn't even cover it. I was eating my dinner when we had to hear about the grotesque plaintiff's yucky penis EWWWW omg and about his hard-rode wife appearing in low-rent porn movies. EWWW! And def? I'm sorry, but whatever implants you had they did not increase your allure or if they did, I guess I just can't see it. All these trashy, revolting characters didn't make themselves more likable with their constant, stupid yapping.  This may have been merely amusing in a twisted, disgusting, perverted kind of way, but what kind of inhuman cretin just ships her 28-year-old horse off to some strangers? It's not a car, but a living creature with feelings, you hag. I wouldn't give my tropical fish to a stranger from FB. I guess def needed to save a few bucks to make her butt even bigger. 😡 I hope she busts them next time she's riding a horse.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Why can't we see the video of the wife slapping the husband in the waiting room?   

That might have made this mess worthwhile.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

dude suing mechanic cuz his hoopty with 300,000miles on it blew the engine

Who would think anything would go wrong with the ancient vehicle with enough mileage to have travelled the circumference of the globe 12 times? Def couldn't fix it himself, because his spinal adjustment wasn't there or something like that, so calls in his yahoo friends to mess with the poor old thing. Sadly, his bathroom trip (when you gotta go, etc! and he really had to go. Ew, again) resulted in his buddies messing up the car. Maybe. It wouldn't take much to kill the relic.  It sat at def's for over two months. Plaintiff explains that he was called away suddenly, to a place that has no phones or any other means of communication. Maybe he was urgently needed as consultant on some major project in the heart of the Amazon, or on top of Mt. Everest? It couldn't be that he got his ass thrown in the slammer could it? This seems to be a common occurance - needing to leave town or "going away" for awhile - with so many litigants. Some very important people on this show.

  • Like 4
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

If wifey slapped hubby, why did hubby apologize for slapping wifey?

Were they both beating the hell out of each other?

  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post

In the horse case, I can't believe those litigants managed to stop yapping long enough and were able to formulate enough coherent sentences to actually write not only one contract, but two! Plaintiff was babbling nonsense most of the time, but defendant was even worse, endlessly repeating her well-rehearsed story, even after JM shot it down.

As for the old clunker breaking down, if the mechanic had not been honest enough (some people would probably say "dumb enough") to say his guys might have started the car when they should not have, JM would probably have dismissed the case instead of splitting the cost of the motor between the two.

What is it with those people who think their worn-down jalopy runs perfectly and is in mint condition right until the moment a mechanic puts his sacrilegious hands on it?

 

So according to HL's closing message, they are now looking for cases that they will hear remotely, with parties arguing from home; good luck maintaining discipline in that context. Which means that litigants will have to agree to air their dirty laundry and sordid family details on national TV without getting a free trip to L.A. in return. I hope for their sake that the production increases the appearance fee or award kitty to balance things out.

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

Plaintiff accused defendant of being on drugs. She replies "I don't drink or smoke".  Doesn't mean she doesn't take drugs.  Also her eyes looked off to me, like drugged.  

So, if they film at home, does that mean we get to see all the trash in the litigants houses?  Like whens someone posts furniture on FB, but they can't be bothered to clean the trash off the piece they are selling.  If so, I'm in!

  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Were they both beating the hell out of each other?

>

>

>

14 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

So according to HL's closing message, they are now looking for cases that they will hear remotely, with parties arguing from home; good luck maintaining discipline in that context.

If this happens we very well may be treated to the sight of some loving families beating the hell out of each other. Who's going to stop them? Maybe we'll even get to see first-hand exactly how all these holes in walls and doors ripped from hinges occur. These are people who cannot control themselves even on TV with security guards present. Imagine in their own environments?

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post

I'm done.  I cannot take these boring long cases a moment more.  I just turned the TV off in the middle of the old men boat case.  OMG... 

I don't think I can watch this show any longer. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

The new case with the man and woman who lived together for years, and are fighting over small stuff was funny.    The old saying about "if looks could kill" certainly applied.   If the plaintiff's glares at the defendant were lasers, the defendant would have been a smoking pile of ash.

Harvey looks terrible in front of the gold background he has now (not that he looked that great before).  

I'm sick of the stupid boat cases, with know nothing people getting a 30 year old boat for a low price, and expecting it to be a yacht after they put it in the water.   I wish the Navy would line all of the boat litigants up, and have target practice with them.   

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, just about to start DVR, but came here first....... sounds like I might as well delete today's recording unwatched......... oh well, like @NYGirl said, guess it's time for another court tv sabbatical

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I could not believe JM sitting there encouraging the ridiculous dramatics from the uber-mouthy, over-acting plaintiff, the butting in, the talking over her and the chicken necking and squabbling between the litigants. P appeared to be here hoping some sleazy reality show producer might want to hire her. Lady - please try to find some foundation garment that will lift those bazooms at least higher than hip level. I bet her little former toyboy may have told he was moving on to greener pastures, but she simply could not STFU long enough to hear it.  Maybe JM found it all entertaining. I did not. It was excruciating. As for the lawn mower and snow blower and weed whacker - can't see plaintiff using any of that equipment anyway, but she still gets 1200$ for it after wee former paramour swiped it. P couldn't stand there in the garage to watch what he took because it was cold and she has a dog.

Couldn't stick with the boat boyz.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Harvey looks terrible in front of the gold background he has now (not that he looked that great before). 

Yes. He manages to look even worse than usual, and that's saying a lot.

 

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

know nothing people getting a 30 year old boat for a low price, and expecting it to be a yacht after they put it in the water. 

They're on par with the people buying an 16-year-old Pontiac Grand Prix with 287,000 miles on it from some CL hustler, expecting showroom condition and then deciding they needn't pay for it because they find out it has mechanical problems. "He promised me it was perfect!!"

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 I wish the Navy would line all of the boat most annoying litigants up, and have target practice with them.   

There.

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

I've come to the same conclusion.  If they keep on wasting a full 30 minutes on these really stupid cases, they'll have to do it without my television being tuned in.

In happier news, I'm getting in a good nap every afternoon from about 3 to 4.

  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I'm sick of the stupid boat cases, with know nothing people getting a 30 year old boat for a low price, and expecting it to be a yacht after they put it in the water.

The two defendants came across as pretentious old geezers; were they a couple or just two "confirmed bachelors" who have an common interest in run-down boats?

JM ignored what the plaintiffs said about the layers of problems that can only be discovered sequentially as each problem is corrected in turn. This was a very relevant point and I think there is a good chance that the mechanics corrected most of the big problems, until the only thing left what the little work the roaming-about-the-courtroom plaintiff did. They also seemed a little ignorant of some very basic aspects of motor mechanics, despite their alleged work experience, as the plaintiffs pointed out in the hallterview.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Let me get this straight.  TPC is going to have cases from home?   From litigants homes?  

So much better seeing their abodes in real time as opposed to grainy pictures on a cracked cellphone.

I am all in.

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 6

Share this post


Link to post

Two case day - had 1st case running in background during lunch. Stepmother suing 20yo stepdaughter over loan. At first sounded like step Mom had a little financial smarts, but apparent money IQ just keeps dropping more we hear. Stepdaughter in all kinds of money trouble, and tells MM that stepmother is only one in family not having money troubles....... as we go along turns out stepmother is old of those robbing Peter to pay Paul people. She has thousands of credit card debt of her own, but loans stepdaughter $1100, then buys her a phone and puts her on the family plan - it's ok, though, see she got herself a new 0% interest card  and transferred both hers and stepdaughter's balance onto new card. Course, SD promised to pay off her balance before the time ran out and interest shot up to 25% or whatever. They worked out a plan when she'd pay so much a pay period and her balance was supposed be paid off in weeks - course never happens, first she can't make the promised payments - SM reduces scheduled payments, but SD still can't keep up - SD announces she can't pay anything on her share of phone bill - the inevitable fight happens when these broke ass people still go on vacation together racking up more debt - by now it's 2 years past point where 0% interest on card ran out and debt that was supposed  to be paid off in weeks still outstanding - plus a few hundred more for the phone........ one positive, unlike so many these two are at least civil towards each other........ SM wins, but she messed up one interest she though was owed, so her claim gets cut - MM sort of scoffs at notion SM is only financially stable person in family as we learn her current credit card debt still gaining up (in think I heard doubled from original 4 grand CC balance to 8, but remote WAY over there and I didn't - care enough to get up and rewind - oh, and MM also digs at SD and her nails and salon bills, but SD explains she gets that stuff free or paid by BF

Second case started and it's a break up feud - P suing for like $4500 in cash and property she says ex stole/disposed of when she went to jail....... don't know what happened with this one - when I learned they were feuding and fussing, but still living together despite mutual restraining orders I jumped ship, found the remote and started Big Bang Theory

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

No TPC for me today. There was some state funeral going on. I flipped over to my DVR "Hot Bench" instead.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

MM sort of scoffs at notion SM is only financially stable person in family as we learn her current credit card debt still gaining up

I'm kind of sorry I missed this train wreck, but really - is money owed on credit cards really money? You can't see it or touch it so maybe it doesn't count as debt.

  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry not sorry that my decision was made for me with the funeral on TV pre-empting the PC.  I may have enjoyed the step mother./step daughter but probably not and then I would have been over here complaining again.  I am definitely cantankerous with this quarantine.

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Second case started and it's a break up feud - P suing for like $4500 in cash and property she says ex stole/disposed of when she went to jail....... don't know what happened with this one - when I learned they were feuding and fussing, but still living together despite mutual restraining orders I jumped ship, found the remote and started Big Bang Theory

No money for the plaintiff.  She couldn't prove she had $1,800 in cash (which she accused defendant of stealing), and rather than receipts, she had a list of clothing he had disposed of with amounts she had pulled down from the internet.  It looked more like a shopping list.  

Having listened to both of them, I wouldn't trust either one of them if their tongues came notarized.

She, of course, is a Reverent (sic) Mother, and he is a deacon.

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

She, of course, is a Reverent (sic) Mother, and he is a deacon.

Not surprising, I guess. I wonder what qualifications are needed to be a pastor, a "reverent" or a deacon? From what I've seen on this show, a basic education and a grasp of the English language are not obligatory. But what do I know about such things? Not much.

Oh, and BTW - I didn't do much better on Hot Bench. P is a woman with PTSD, agoraphobia and who has a stress-related seizure condition. She needs someone to care for her and manage her payments, handouts, finances, etc. because she is too disabled to deal with all that.  She engages the creepy, homely, old-bald-guy-with-ponytail to come live with her and care for her. But ooops, she's not too disabled for a little whoopie and she starts banging OBGWPT and gee, finds out she's pregnant because what she really needs in her life is a baby. The judges want to know how she's managing this debilitating agoraphobia while going to the airport,  flying in to appear here and being in "all these open spaces" and on TV, no less. It's been a struggle, she admits. I checked out there.

Edited by AngelaHunter
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Not surprising, I guess. I wonder what qualifications are needed to be a pastor, a "reverent" or a deacon?

Well, a deacon isn't an actual job.  At least not at my church. It's a volunteer position.  

  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Katy M said:

Well, a deacon isn't an actual job.  At least not at my church. It's a volunteer position.  

But it still requires completing a course of study and living a life that affirms the values of the church.  And in some churches, it is a staff position which does come with a salary.

  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

But it still requires completing a course of study and living a life that affirms the values of the church.  And in some churches, it is a staff position which does come with a salary.

Not at my church.  The members just decide if you have demonstrated faith and leadership.  No courses necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

But it still requires completing a course of study and living a life that affirms the values of the church.  And in some churches, it is a staff position which does come with a salary.

I know this is off the wall and in wrong topic/forum.  On Big Bang, when Mark Hamil guests as himself and marries Sheldon and Amy, who does he cite as the power that gives him the perform marriages........ something like "even.you.can. perform.weddings.com"

  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post

Second case today seemed enjoyable, and then my power went off.  What did the defendant call the judge that she like?  I heard her say some countries call judges her majesty.  Was going to rewind, and then power went off.

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/2/2020 at 10:23 PM, Florinaldo said:

As for the old clunker breaking down, if the mechanic had not been honest enough (some people would probably say "dumb enough") to say his guys might have started the car when they should not have, JM would probably have dismissed the case instead of splitting the cost of the motor between the two.

I will say that it is rare and refreshing to see someone actually admit the truth even though it hurts their own case.

 

On 6/2/2020 at 10:23 PM, Florinaldo said:

So according to HL's closing message, they are now looking for cases that they will hear remotely, with parties arguing from home; good luck maintaining discipline in that context. Which means that litigants will have to agree to air their dirty laundry and sordid family details on national TV without getting a free trip to L.A. in return. I hope for their sake that the production increases the appearance fee or award kitty to balance things out.

Will they supply funky backgrounds like Levin's?  Will Douglas jump in and out of the Zoom calls to swear people in?  I am intrigued about how they would make this work.  Also - I'm sure at least one litigant will say "I don't have it here right now," and then run off to somewhere in their house and start rifling through their stuff to find it. 😄  The editors will be busy!

  • Like 1
  • 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