Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

The People's Court - General Discussion


  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

 I didn't get why MM was trying to put a positive spin on the financial fraud lady.  I gather she's big into criminals can be reformed and that's great, but this woman didn't say how here life was more positive now and more importantly she didn't seem to express any remorse for her past crimes.  If fact, she seemed just a few steps short of giddy about being honored with an expose on her past criminal deeds.   I hate shows that glorify thieves and criminals.  Has anyone seen the show she was on?  Is that what it does?   I'm assuming that don't knock the criminals that hard if she was that up for being on it.

 I don't understand how she committed her crimes.  Student loan money isn't sent out in cash.   There's no Brinks truck making a delivery to the student (or the financial aid officer).   If the student qualifies, it goes to the university.   How did she steal money?   Admittedly I wasn't paying full attention so apparently I missed something.   

  • Love 5
Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Maverick said:

If the student qualifies, it goes to the university.   How did she steal money?   Admittedly I wasn't paying full attention so apparently I missed something.   

Not sure on this particular case, but some theft is through embezzlement.  People in a position to do so can open bank accounts with names similar to the university and the deposit the funds into that account and fudge the computer records.  Or they invent students who apply for financial aid.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
18 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Second case was nonsense about some woman felon who supposedly turned her life around after prison and she was going to be featured in a BET documentary

Another Instant Celebrity who has an over-inflated idea of the value of her image... sorry, her "brand". Of course, there's always PR professionals on the market ready to profit from such delusions.

When the defendant was describing what the plaintiff wanted to be promoted, I lost count of the number of things she was "passionate" about. With so much passion going on, I am surprised she found time to embezzle money, twice!

But he did not seem willing to put in the work and effort necessary to actually put in application whatever PR plan the defendant put together.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
13 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Criminals will always find a way to commit crimes but they usually get caught because in general they're not overly bright.

You mean coming on a national TV show, announcing your crime, coming on a TV judge show with national viewing audience, and seeming to be very proud of your crimes?  

This morning's rerun is the woman who purchased a 'used' air conditioner system, after the seller of her home or the property took the original unit with them.   Then she was paid almost $3k by the insurance company, but only spent $1800 on the used, scratch and dent unit without a warranty, and then a few years later it was having issues (you prevent that by getting a maintenance plan with a good repair company).   She was suing the a/c installer, for the unit failing.   Plaintiff claims she never signed the work order to install the used unit, without a warranty, but her signatures on everything else she signed look the same.    Also, there is duct tape and all kinds of stuff on the unit, showing that someone tried to make it work, but that person obviously knew nothing about how to fix it.  That plaintiff loses, and deserved to. 

Then there is the health and fitness influencer, she hired some PR guy to promote her brand, and he didn't do much.   The defendant is infuriating, because he keeps looking all over the court room, acting bored, and has a stupid looking man purse.   Plaintiff didn't become a celebrity fitness person, and she's suing for attorney fees, and a full refund from defendant.  Plaintiff gets a refund. 

I hate car cases.    Man Bun plaintiff bought a used car from a dealer, but he claimed he worked for a school system, and earned $3300 a month.     He grossly exaggerated his pay, and didn't come close to qualifying for the loan.   Man bought a used Mercedes, put down $5,000 on the car, and the total price was $14000.  Balance was $11,000+ with interest. plus gap insurance, taxes and title, registration, and some kind of warranty.    

Three weeks later plaintiff was called and told his finance wasn't approved.    Defendant produces the customer signed agreement.    Defendant says the credit application was false, Man Bun didn't make $3300 a month, but $1700 a month.     Defendant (car dealer) says that if it would have been a staff mistake, then they would have refunded the deposit of $5,000.   Dealer gets smart, and tells plaintiff to bring the car back in, and they'll finance something else for him, it was a ploy to get the car back in one piece.    Man Bun says he had too many "incidental" (or something like that), meaning insufficient funds in his past.   Man Bun was charged a daily charge ($40 a day), and mileage, and was refunded about $1800 miles or so, and signed a release stating this would be charged to him.    I wish hunky, adorable Douglas would rip Man Bun's stupid ponytail out by the roots, and make him cry, and show him real bullying.  

Man Bun's bank said too many inquiries, too many insufficient funds, poor credit history, and had less than half of the income he claimed.   Also, Man Bun decides to pull out a wad of cash to show the judge how he gets paid in cash, so much for the W-2 job he claimed to have.     Fortunately, Man Bun gets nothing.   

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Love 2
Link to comment
On 9/21/2020 at 5:32 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Thirteen year old calls this brain-dead slug to tell him the door is open. Does 'Father of the Year' call the police and tell the girl to run to a neighbour and stay there til he gets home? Nope, he tells her to go in, go upstairs and check around to see if any of his precious belongings are missing.

I'm so glad that Doug called him on that because the first thing that popped into my head at the very least was: "Go somewhere else right now and I'm on my way home..."

 

On 9/22/2020 at 4:19 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

The next case is another used car lemon case, but the funny thing is the plaintiff looks like she's being held captive in the plaintiff's table.     So the car was a 2003 model, and if it's entire life was in Massachusetts (where the sale happened), where road salt is a fact of life, then I'm shocked the axles and motor mounts lasted for at least 15 years.  So she bought a car as is, never has a mechanic look at it, and then the motor mount breaks a month later, and engine falls out.    If she would have taken it to a good mechanic, then she would have been shocked at the cost for the mounts, but it would probably still be her car, instead of junk. 

It was even worse than that.  She never even took it for a test drive.  The level of stupidity in the world just boggles...  She had so many opportunities to find a way to even get her money back, and screwed them all up.

I always say: "You can't fix stupid."

"Return of the Jetta." Ha!  I'm really starting to like Judge JS.  I am also enjoying his collection of suits and ties.

 

On 9/22/2020 at 6:52 PM, Taeolas said:

I play Magic the Gathering, so that case is something I know a bit about. 

I don't play, but my friend's son does and one of my sons plays another card game, so I am familiar with all this to a point as well.  Quality is a factor in value and I was someone surprised to see them showing off the cards without being in the clear holders at least.

My son does go to a card shop from time to time to play (but not now in the time of Covid), but he does order cards online where there are active marketplaces for people to buy and sell cards.  I am also not sure why the P had the D sell those cards.  He could have done it himself online and marketed them the way he wanted.  I totally think that the D stole the cards and pocketed the cash.

I was also surprised that JM gave him the current market value because as I understand it, Magic cards are affected when the rules of the game are updated and some cards are not considered part of the game anymore, so a card that was worth something may be unusable down the line.  I think that JM wanted to spank the D to some extent because he kept spouting one bullshit excuse after another and JM had had enough.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
  1. Doesn't sound like a dog fight to me: P wants $650 for vet bills after what has to be the lamest pit bull attack I've heard of - her story is she started to enter the dog park, saw the D and her unleashed pit already in the park, called D who called her pit, pit goes back to owner and, without waiting to be sure pit is leashed, P opens the gate - pitty hears gate and runs back and exits the dog park - pit bowls over little dashund/beagle mix trying to play - P thinks this is a vicious attack and bops Pit in the head while screaming for D to come get her dog - D, at least temporarily handicapped, has to put brace on foot before she can come get pit (temporary or permanent disability, unsure, as P mentions a broken foot, yet D describes pit as her retrieval service dog - which would mean dog brings go her stuff when she can't go get it)......... that's all testimony from P, and without hearing a word from D I'm ready to dismiss - but before we hear from D we get to see the dogs - one of the advantages of this zoom format - P's little mix is a cute old lady sort of dog, without reading to much into it, P has to get up and go get her dog and holds it for the camera - dog could have been locked away in other room or it may not come when called - D's pit is adorable midsized pit, 3 years old, and obviously well trained as D calls it, makes kissy noises a couple times and it runs to her to see what she wsnts and then jumps on the bed behind D wanting to play....... so, viscous attack has the puppy pit playing too rough when P opens gate and lets it out of dog park, pit knocking little old lady down, P bopping pit in head with plastic cup to "get it's attention," then pit sits down trying to figure out why P is carrying on - at least that's D's version, mostly confirming get what P said but when MM turns back to P she tells us most of what D is false - but we never hear why....... ok, not sure what the difference is, and what P tells us now makes her case even weaker - guess she's arguing D was on prior notice about her pit's aggression nature as she tells us that last year there was another incident where the pit 'attacked' her other dog - this sounds like another non-incident where then 2 yo pit 'lunged' towards  her dog and P freaked - no bite or attack, just pit running towards P, P thought her dog was under attack and stepped between dogs and pit backed off........ so why the hell did she decide to enter the dog park before making sure 'viscous' pit was leased........ when asked why D thinks P describes these as attacks she says she thinks it's the pit bull 'stigma'.......... ok, I sure don't hear a case - P even says the pit is perfectly behaved when with D on leash, D and her dog were in dog park where leash is not required - P opened gate knowing pit was there without making sure it was secured and let pit out - even if there had been a viscous attack it would have been P who created circumstances allowing dogs to come into contact - as it was, despite no visible injury P took little old lady dog to emergency vet where they charged her $650 and diagnosed tenderness and bruising........ actually closer than I thought because of Florida strict liability laws, but case still dismissed - with P protesting over MM as she explains the decision - in hallterview P says this is a common area, as if that removes her responsibility for not being sure pit was leashed before opening gate - it doesn't, but nothing will change her closed mind....... OTOH one reason why I wouldn't go out looking for a pit is people like P who are afraid of the breed - a pit CAN do a lot of damage, and once they get going they can be hard to stop - that doesn't make them bad dogs, but it does mean owners need to be aware and take precautions - this pit seems well trained and is supposedly a trained retrieval service dog
  2. delinquent kid shot up truck but mom won't pay: kid caught and arrested for the vandalism (truck used as bb gun target), but mom says $4500 estimate way too much - if evidence shows kid did the deed the award will depend on estimates and the truck, are we talking a $500 clunker or a $50,000 fancy truck....... ok, D intro throws into question whether son did deed and turns out they want $2500 for stress/harrassment........ D claims son found the BB gun and was arrested day after damage was reported (kid old enough to grow better mustache than many adult litigants) - kid not arrested for shooting up truck, but after complaint he shot another kid......... when P discovers the shot up truck she calls cops, and D mom approached and commiserates with her......... MM doing her Spanish translation duties, though at least this time litigant has a son on standby who could translate....... first hiccup is that when P submitted police reports of incident there's a page missing, so P son looks for that while MM continues tasking to P....... P says first she suspected D's son was when she reported incident to apartment complex office and she learned D son was seen with bb gun....... over to D side where MM asks and is told the son doesn't own a bb gun, but he found one in a field - oh, and seems he was arrested because police received report he shot someone with the found bb gun - he denies shooting the other kid - felony charges dropped to misdemeanor and then dropped completely (?) when parents of shot kid realised he wasn't hurt........ I could go either way with his story - I remember being a dumb kid and getting in trouble for running around with a group of equally dumb kids shooting each other with bb's - rules were we had to shoot low, but a cousin hit my brother in back of head  - boy did we hear about how that could have been an eye........ MM isn't buying the "found a bb gun" and yeah, that's a bit much, but also I think there were more kids shooting this thing and not sure how to hold the 1 kid responsible........... now D mom talks, and we learn at one point she agreed to pay - after all cops her kid knew where gun was hidden the next day - but, as said earlier she objects to a bloated estimate......... seems after agreeing to pay she took P's first estimate to her mechanic, who said he'd do repairs for $300......... ah, but - ding ding ding, does P thinks she's hearing the slot machine at the casino and her estimate grows - anyway, D points out that her agreement to pay was sort of conditioned on talking to her son after he got sprung by the cops, anyway, P began pressuring her to pay, which caused their previous neighborly relationship to devolve in a feud - P shows up to take pictures of D's house and we see video of D's 2 sons yelling at her to stay away - we see pix of damage - nice looking truck and only 1 year old, so, yeah $4500 may be right - and no way do I buy D's guy's $300 - MM starts talking damages by going to countersuit - nope not going to happen - kid pretty much admitted responsible, and her harrassment seems to be that when P was out taking pictures of damage the truck was parked with her hose in back ground, and her sons came out to argue about pointing camera at their house - nope,........ MM says her stress and harrassment is pretty much caused by 2 teenaged sons who mom admits had possession of the 'neihhborhood' bb gun for several days......... ok, all this time we've been waiting for that missing page of police report from day of incident, and P was unable to find it........ really, P deserves to have truck fixed, D admits her kids were involved, and I haven't heard D or her son name anyone else - I'm thinking D pays reasonasonable estimate and let D track down/collect from the other kids........ yep, MM  explains that this is not criminal case with 'beyond reasonable doubt' but a civil 'preponderance of evidence,' and with discrepancies in testimony between statement and mother and son, the balance goes against D - son found liable, but mom let out of judgement..... mom case dismissed, but MM says estimate is high and awards 3 grand. ......... in hallterview, instead of talking to Doug Son pulls out his earbuds and says tough! - and mom argues no proof he did the did, it's so unfair yada yada.......  P says she had actually the $4500 estimate......... in judge chat we hear judges reminiscing about how, early in their marriage, someone shot a pellet through their window and they later learned that their rescue cat, Clark, had been shot and had a pellet next to a rib........ 
Edited by SRTouch
  • Love 4
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, aemom said:

I don't play, but my friend's son does and one of my sons plays another card game, so I am familiar with all this to a point as well.  Quality is a factor in value and I was someone surprised to see them showing off the cards without being in the clear holders at least.

My son does go to a card shop from time to time to play (but not now in the time of Covid), but he does order cards online where there are active marketplaces for people to buy and sell cards.  I am also not sure why the P had the D sell those cards.  He could have done it himself online and marketed them the way he wanted.  I totally think that the D stole the cards and pocketed the cash.

I was also surprised that JM gave him the current market value because as I understand it, Magic cards are affected when the rules of the game are updated and some cards are not considered part of the game anymore, so a card that was worth something may be unusable down the line.  I think that JM wanted to spank the D to some extent because he kept spouting one bullshit excuse after another and JM had had enough.

 

The cards that were shown on the show were from recent sets, and they were "Commons" and "Uncommons", so even in mint condition their value was literally pennies. Sometimes one of those cards might be good enough to use so they might go up in value, but usually they rarely go over a buck. 

If you are playing the cards, you'll usually have them in sleeves. Those help protect the cards while you play them, and usually make them easier to shuffle. Plus they hide imperfections that develop on the cards as you play, that could be viewed as 'marking' the cards. (Especially for formats (that's the rules that say what cards can and can't be played in a set of games) that allow older cards. 

Wizards (the company that makes Magic The Gathering) is constantly tweeking the game, by adding new cards (a set is releasing this week, adding hundreds of new cards), and retiring older sets (some formats say you can only use cards that were in the most recent few sets; others are 'eternal' formats that allow cards from a particular point forward). Wizards can also ban cards that are too powerful for a particular format. 

Case in point, Wizards tweeted yesterday that they are releasing a statement on "standard" (one of their formats) on Monday. The playerbase has a few cards they expect will be affected, so I'm sure the price of those cards are dropping. Prices of other cards are surely rising too, since they will be more valuable with those cards gone. 

In the case of the cards listed as missing however, they have been out for a long time (many of them are "Dual land" cards which were only printed when Magic started, and which Wizards is on record as saying will NEVER be reprinted). So their value is partly due to their rarity and partly because they are powerful cards. Their value is pretty static for the most part; wavering a little occasionally, but never by much. So the value JMM looked up is probably close enough. 

  • Useful 3
Link to comment

In the dog case, my guess is the pit bull part of that defendant's dog is a small part, and no one knows the 90% of the breeding.     I think the plaintiff is a mean old lady, and probably is the bane of the existence of the complex management people, and the HOA (if there is one).     I bet if the defendant was the same age as plaintiff, and looked worse, that there wouldn't have been an issue with the dog.   I bet the plaintiff constantly complains about everything, and everyone.    

In the BB gun case, why is the defendant still living in the complex?    I bet she's no stranger to going to hearings for her delinquent kids, and I think the plaintiff should have received every penny. 

The defendant's mother's eyebrows are hideous.   They look like I did them, and that's bad. 

So defendant's kid really didn't shoot another kid?   But even if he did the police can't prove it.  I would love to see her kid's juvenile records.    The after interview with Doug and the despicable defendant is bizarre.   When Doug asks the son about the judgment, Jaden pulls his ear phones out, and the mother says her son is upset because he lost.   

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Love 3
Link to comment
2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

delinquent kid shot up truck but mom won't pay: 

FIfteen years old and already spent a night in jail. Wow. I think I might have an idea of the source of Mom's (SSM? No doubt) stress and depression and it's not from P asking to be paid for the damage done by sonnyboy. Hey, Jaiden? Put less time, effort and money into your elaborate Medusa-like hairdo and more time into trying to learn to be a future productive, decent human being and help to your mother instead of a burden. Yes, your mom believes anything her darling boy tells her, and probably will continue to do so no matter what he does.  My neighbour got a flat tire the other day. Since I'm such a nice person and a good neighbour I offered to pay for it even though I didn't  flatten it. I'm sure Jaiden's mom is so flush she can afford to be a philanthropist. Keep covering up for your kid! Her little lying angel would never do anything wrong! He got away with paying nothing for his shenannigans this time, but maybe next time he won't.  Mommy is also an expert in body work on cars and thinks the result of her baby's shoot-em-up on a 2019 truck should cost only 300$ to fix. I guess that could be true, with some cousin of a neighour who does bodywork in his spare time in his driveway and who might not get around to the repairs for 7 - 8 months. Her Good Samaritanism goes only so far and 300$ seems to be the limit.

Oh, well. We did get to hear JM speaking Spanish which is something I always enjoy.

 

  • Love 3
Link to comment
2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

In the dog case, my guess is the pit bull part of that defendant's dog is a small part, and no one knows the 90% of the breeding.

Defendant identified her dog as American Staffordshire Terrier.  Did she mention any type of mix with that?  An AmStaff is a pit bull breed and subject to tighter laws (some housing developments won't allow them).  Most people who have a mixed breed - ESPECIALLY if it's part pit - will identify it as a "mix" as in "boxer mix"  or "Yorkie mix."  

I didn't get to see the end of the case, so I'm grateful to those here who gave the outcome.  Our governor usually comes in at the top of the hour for updates, but this time he came in at about quarter past.  Grrrr.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

Defendant won.   Plaintiff saw the defendant's dog, and never let her have a chance to put dog on leash, or not go into the dog area, so she lost.   

The defendant said the dog was a rescue from Puerto Rico, I'm guessing a street dog after a storm, so who knows what the dog actually is.  He looked like generic brown dog to me.     I think the plaintiff is one of those miserable people who has a vivid imagination and claims a lot of things that aren't true. 

I know too many rescues where I live that call everything with a blocky head a boxer mix, or lab mix.   

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Love 3
Link to comment
2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant won.   Plaintiff saw the defendant's dog, and never let her have a chance to put dog on leash, or not go into the dog area, so she lost.   

The defendant said the dog was a rescue from Puerto Rico, I'm guessing a street dog after a storm, so who knows what the dog actually is.  He looked like generic brown dog to me.     I think the plaintiff is one of those miserable people who has a vivid imagination and claims a lot of things that aren't true.   

Yeah, I heard rescue from PR after the hurricaine. I figured a pit mix and that D has had so much backlash when people hear "pit bull" she now says Staffordshire Terrier. People who know dogs know, but maybe it avoids some of negative feedback from some folks - goes opposite for me, just say pit bull.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
  1. momma in law sues: mother in law P suing her son in law for money made for variety of things (medical bills, concert tickets, truck repair etc) - just from intos and preview I expect this is one of those where everything P did for D when things were friendly has become retroactive loans....... son in law has countersuit for stuff P damaged/threw out when she kicked him out (loving daughter/wife smart enough to stay away from camera)........ yeah, lots of chatter - young couple had quicky courtship/marriage/and now baby on the way - neither have any money, can't pay rent so bounce between mommies houses to which ever can stand to have them til next blow up........ P makes them loans (partly for their honeymoon trip to see Sara Evans concert in the raggedy old truck that needs to be fixed before hitting the road) not sure why P thinks these were only D's loans, especially when she says reason she 'loaned' D the money cuz her daughter has no money....... well, duh, neither did he - they're now a legal couple and the debt, if it is a legal debt, sure sounds like a joint marital debt type loan for the couple's benefit/enjoyment - instead of forking over money to these entitled kids (about to be parents) somebody should have told them to get a job or get in school to be trained to earn a living and forget honeymoon until they are self supporting (don't worry, MM will hold a counselling session)......... oh my, seems like momma went along on the honeymoon/concert trip - not only that, but she and her son were to share the room with the newlyweds?! On the trip the couple have an argument, and once they get to their room they tell mom they want to skip the concert - sounds like mom was more upset about missing Sara Evans than the honeymooner's tif..... anyway, when they get to the room (2 beds and a sofa bed) the newlyweds go into the bedroom area and shut the door and momma follows right behind, opens the door  to tell them to get ready........ kerfuffle, new child bride crying, mom told they no longer want to go to concert and bride saying she does't want her brother sleeping in her honeymoon suite etc, mom says son WILL be sleeping in room, new hubby announcing he and bride will go sleep in car, momma not hearing darling daughter sleeping in car and pays for another room for the honeymooners........ all this and I'm not hearing much of a case - mom keeps saying how couple agreed to repay her, but even if MM decides that amounts to a loan I'm not sure I'd give momma anything - we'really going to have to break down these things go momma says she paid for - ok, she paid to get truck road worthy for trip - she she and son rode in truck, but did she pay D for ride/gas/etc - she bought concert tickets for her 2 kids, the new hubby and herself, she and son went to concert and meet and greet while newlyweds stayed in the new separate room - oops, when D starts talking we learn a couple things - first, mom only paid 3 tickets and hubby wasn't going to concert - second, bad blood between the siblings, and according to hubby she 'didn't feel safe' going to concert with the brother, according to mom it was brother and hubby getting into things over hubby wanting to join military (?) And not clear why hubby thinks the two got into it - too much Springer for me and I start zipping as we go to commercials........ ok, when I slow down and start listening again it's a month later and newlyweds are living with mom - brother and hubby into it again and mom kicks him out - OKKKKKKKI have to back this up - this is where the previews we've seen about litigant announcing the other side had attempted murder charges - seems after the concert trip D started a job as a security guard - mom says while at work a space heater caught fire and D and other guards put it out, but D was bit by the fire bug and he sets another fire and ends up charged with arson and attempted murder fire gets out of control, as long as she's telling us that she adds he was caught stealing - I'm wondering if she should be telling us this stuff - is there actually an open case - anyway, after the fires he comes home worried about how he might be going to prison - apparently no charges were filed, she's talking about a text he sent worried about possible charges - hey, darling wife got herself a job and she's at work while mom, 83 yo grandma in her wheelchair and the brother get into it with hubby about the weird texts about the fire and possible charges - big kerfuffle, cops called, etc......... mom gives him the boot......... ok, MM finally asks - these the newlyweds are 22-23yo.....  a month after getting booted he goes back to get the rest of his stuff (including wifey who has been living with momma). ...... I'm pretty much over these two when he begins trying to explain why he came back a month after being booted to get his stuff, but didn't actually get all his stuff - sad sad story, his truck that momma had paid to fix went to clunker heaven, couldn't borrow his momma's clunker because it was in shop with no transmission  (did I mention the 23 yo was moving back to his mommy with his bride)........ ok, so the couple both work, neither pay rent, but have no money for a uhaul - ah, no, seems when he got boot from P and went home to his mommy he lost his job (hmmm, wonder why they would fire him after 1 'accidental' fire and 1 fire he admits to setting  - not even going to P'she accusation that he was ripping off money from businesses he was hired to guard) and bride and soon to be mommy quit her job when she moved out to go live with D at his mommy's house - so no income with baby on the way........ I haven't liked momma P since I heard she and her son went with couple on the honeymoon trip, and more D talks less I think of him - does not help that he has that a slow southern drawl........... thankfully time us running out and MM is about ready to start the actual case - defense has been these were never loans, they were a gift, etc etc - ah, but dufus signed a promissory note for some of this money - he says he signed under duress just to get his stuff and get away without another argument - after he left, P threw the stuff he couldn't fit and take that day outside........ ok, family counseling time - seems the feuding sibs have made up, but daughter keeps trying to mediate with her mom and ask for more time for new hubby to get work and pay her back, but P is keeping feud going and texting back she's going to die without money to buy insulin - MM points out if money is that tight maybe she shouldn't be leaning money (for a Sara Evans concert)......... ok, MM knows how she's going to rule, but unless I zipped passed it we viewers still don't know if the case is ripe - is there a payment schedule on the promissory note?........ ok, this case is all OVER the place and I'm not sure of the timeline, what it comes down to is long counseling session - MM orders delivered to pay the amount of promissory note, and wipes away the countersuit for stuff in left in P's house (where he never paid rent) for 3 months....... 
  2. snow plow plowed parked car: P says he was in house when he dear his car alarm sound - when he went outside he saw snow plow driving away - want plow guy to for just over 4 grand in damages...... D says it was a blue car that hit the car in a hit and run - says there was blue paint on P's car after accident and his plow is not blue........ P heard plow coming, heard the crash and alarm and looked out the window to see truck driving away (only saw rear of truck and did not see plow on front)...... soon as he heard commotion he and 4-5 friends go out, see the damage, call cops and begin taking pictures - yes he has his friends here as witnesses...... ok, we'll have to see about this blue car that D supposedly saw and maybe left paint on the P'says red car - but P says he heard crash and saw a truck driving away immediately thereafter, no blue car) and was on scene taking pix right away - and tire tracks in the snow sure don't look like car tires - P reminds me of the courtroom scene in Cousin Vinny as P gives expert tire testimony about why those tracks could no be tires from a car.......... over to D - D admits he himself had plowed that evening, but says he did not hit the car....... P is some type of government employee, when asked what it is he does he just answers "math - mathmatics" - what, CIA analyst, maybe? - MM P pretty impressed as he presented quite the packet of evidence with all kinds of analysis and calculations to disprove D defense - not sure he needs all that, from the testimony sounds like there's enough circumstantial evidence to say it was D - unless of course we actually see some blue paint left by a mystery car....... ok, another problem for D - as he testifies there is nothing remarkable about when he was plowing that street - says he didn't see  mystery blue hit P's car,  but cars are always cutting off the plow - so how does he remember this blue car so clearly - he could be right, I know people who remember things like that, but I sure wouldn't remember some blue car hours later to tell the police a out for the report.......... ok, MM listen to P describe his calculations, but, like I said, sounds like he already has enough to win......... MM doesn't see blue paint on P's car - surprise! MM agrees there's enough circumstantial evidence to award P his damages - P after lotto money, and MM choose $1300 from award based on estimate and proof of work already paid to get car driveable........ course D thinks he was robbed and he couldn't present his defense....... in after the verdict chat MM says the clincher for her were the pix of the damage - and she's right, in pix sure looks like damage was not caused by an impact so much as something scraping along side of car - suspiciously like you would get from the top and bottom of a curved snowplow
Edited by SRTouch
  • Love 4
Link to comment

The first family case was stupid, and so were the litigants.   I hope village idiot defendant will not be going in the military, unless every other person in this country refuses to serve.     As my cousins would say "Something's not right with that man".      Mr. Whiny Britches wouldn't make it through the entry test, wouldn't last through basic, and probably would be rejected because he's a total idiot.  Also, did he admit to domestic violence on national TV?   If so, a domestic violence conviction means the Lautenberg Amendment applies, that person does not qualify to carry a weapon, and the security guard job is gone too (I'm hoping they already fired him there).    I feel sorry for the baby, because with parents like this, that kid isn't going to have a chance to grow up in a peaceful home.    So I guess since defendant is looking for a job (right now, if you work hard, in that area you can get a good job.  I bet he can forget that).    

With the criminal charges, idiot defendant will never be enlisted in the military.    I bet there are a lot of jobs that won't hire a convicted arsonist, or someone who tried to kill people with the fire either.  

Judge Marilyn needs to decide if she a family counselor or a judge.    The only reason they're all mad is that defendant won't be going into the military, and if he went through basic, and AIT, and became active duty, when the inevitable divorce happens, the baby would have benefits and child support guaranteed.    However, with the accusations against the defendant, no one is going to recruit him.    

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Love 5
Link to comment
1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

momma in law sues: 

We get another glimpse into the dysfunctional, stupid breeders of the future generation. Two dumb-as-bricks yahoos think it will be fun to get married, and go on a honeymoon and play at being grownups even though they can't feed themselves, provide a roof over their heads or even get an oil change on their old beater truck. Maybe marriage and popping out defenseless babies might not be the best idea? Let's live with mommies and of course, they don't need to pay rent or pay even for the food that goes into their mouths. Honeymoon sounds so awesome, though even though they don't have two nickels to rub together.

Drawling moron Def is not only an idiot, but I think he's seriously defective in the brain department. He wants to be a husband and father but starts a fire on his job so he can look like a big hero, put it out and get lots of attention just the like the firemen. Except he gets charged with arson, attempted murder, etc etc instead. After that, P's equally dopey, brain-dead daughter thinks it would be SO fun to have a baby with this idiot who has been charged with felonies. D explains to JM, when asked if wifey works, that's she a stay-at-home mom. Well, no there are no kids yet, but she's now enciente, so she's actually a 22-year-old housewife, because he can provide so handsomely for his little family even though he has no job. Kiddies, if you want to play grown-up, don't live with Mommies, because then Mommy takes charge of you and that's not what big grownups want, right? JM, with the counselling? Are you kidding? Oh, yes - let the kiddies have a baby and they can all be one big happy family with Granny bouncing grandchild on her knee, and including brother who also lives with Mommy and who gets into fights with numbnuts def.  But yeah, considering we've seen on this show and the kind of misfits the military is willing to accept these days, maybe he get in there, at least until he starts a fire or a fight or creates some other stupid problem.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

snow plow plowed parked car: 

I rather liked this case. P, the mathmetician, was articulate and concise, as was his witness and he had all his evidence - apparently way more than was needed. The D was a slimy weasel, who, like many liars puts too much detail into his phony defense/lies. Yes, I'm sure someone who spends many days and evenings plowing streets remembers every passing car. I see these plow guys all the time around here, and careful they are not always, especially the guys in the tiny little plows who clear sidewalks. You better be quick if you don't want to get run over. After ramming the P's car so hard he pushed it out of the parking spot he took off PDQ. Wow, did he look shifty and bad.

"I got plowed. I swear". Yeah, I bet, Levin, "but that's not important right now".

  • Love 5
Link to comment
3 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

IKR?  With all those idiots riding bareback with strangers,  I'm surprised there's not a STD superbug pandemic.

Honestly! I guess they don't think about that when they hook up some CL loser. They're probably the type who think they can just look at someone and "know" they're okay, just like the idiots who think they can't get pregnant the first time or if "we only did it once!"

  • Love 2
Link to comment
On 9/26/2020 at 3:37 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Honestly! I guess they don't think about that when they hook up some CL loser. They're probably the type who think they can just look at someone and "know" they're okay, just like the idiots who think they can't get pregnant the first time or if "we only did it once!"

The CL Prince Charming conundrum - "what shall I whip out first?  My coochie or my debit card?"

  • LOL 3
Link to comment
On 9/23/2020 at 9:46 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Criminals will always find a way to commit crimes but they usually get caught because in general they're not overly bright.

...And as I've learned from waaay too much "Covid ID Channel" - Crooks are not only "not bright", their true curse is that they don't know it and think they are freaking Sheldon Cooper.

Detectives love this particular character flaw.

  • LOL 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment

This morning's rerun is the bizarre case of the Russian or Ukrainian upstairs neighbor, being sued by the woman who owns the downstairs condo.   The upstairs woman has a 10 year old that lives with the husband, but the husband, and child live elsewhere, because as the husband says, "She needs her space".   

There is a video of the bizarre screaming, and noises coming from the upstairs apartment, and it sounds horrible, with loud banging, and screaming like someone is being murdered.    The woman lives alone, and says she just gets mad.   

The plaintiff says on one occasion, she called police because she thought someone was being murdered in the defendant's condo, and the police finally hauled her away in an ambulance.  The plaintiff says the police, and EMTs had a hard time getting the woman into the ambulance.   The husband says he doesn't know anything about this.   

The husband denies the defendant has mental health issues, but he's lying.    The defendant is severely disturbed, and I feel sorry for the plaintiff, who will never be able to rent that condo again, or resell it either.       The defendant just stands and stares when she's asked a question, and barely talks at all.     

Yes, Harvey, residents of condos, apartments, and housing are not allowed to drive other people out with excessive noise.   As Judge Marilyn says, it sounds like the Exorcist upstairs.     

The husband isn't going to move her out either.  Poor Doug in the hall-terview is trying to talk to the woman, but she's almost comatose.    The defendant is totally out of it.   The husband blames everything on the downstairs neighbor.    The only person crazier than the tenant is her husband.  

I realize looking at older postings, I called Judge John, Steve.    Don't know how that happened, but I'll fix that from now on. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Love 3
Link to comment
  1. wedding caterer kerfuffle: D hired P to cater his wedding then backed out when he realized expenses were through the roof - course P now claims he should be paid for the job........ D has sort of 2 defenses listed in intro, and short on funds is not one of them - first, he says he lost confidence in P when he found P had double charged and collected from his debit card without authorization - that's reason enough to lose confidence in someone you're doing business with, but maybe not enough for a refund, but the biggy here is that D says they had a contract which allowed him to pull plug with no penalty if he notified P at least 48 hours prior to event......... uh, if there's a contract with that cause the only question is when D pulled the plug....... D has countersuit asking for return of fees he's paid....... oh, and not sure why catering job was canceled, but covid has put wedding on hold til next year...... ah, seems D found this guy online on a board similar to AngiesList and P was the cheapest he could find, which seldom works out......... and about now I really begin to dislike P - first he's the businessman, but does not look very businesslike in his t-shirt, but the real turn off here is how he talks around the issue and won't focus on the judge (or camera in the zoom-age) - and just SIT STILL, dude stop bouncing around and leraning towards the camera....... thing is, MM does get P to admit they had a signed contract - then we start into what caused the trouble - seems contract called for payment on sort if a schedule, with a $500 deposit upfront and rest to come later - so, D pays the $500 deposit, then gets surprised when he can't pay for dinner with his card - seems P charged the card a second time, without authorization, 48 hours after the first, authorized, charge - P insists D authorized both payments, but D says second payment was out of left field...... ah yes, so nice to argue a contract case with an actual contract - contract says $500 deposit with remaining thousand later, but no due date........ these two were doing business visit text, so MM already has her evidence and is just making a show for the viewer....... today P is trying to claim the second $500 charge was a scheduled payment that D verbally authorized......... no way, says D - turns out it wasn'the dinner where the card was declined but a convenienced store - now began a song and dance routine, with D watching his bank, calling P and being told problem will be straightened out in a couple days - call bank in a couple days, $500 not refunded, call P get another stall - after 2-3 time P says he needs to talk to a lawyer before refunding the money....... huh? goes he have a lawyer on retainer or is he paying someone a couple hundred bucks to handle a $500 refund?........ D was out of patience at this point, and started dealing with the Internet board (thumbtack) where he found P listed........ thumbtack told him to go ahead and contact his bank to get a provisional refund (which he did)........ 2 weeks later P gets the charge reinstated, but goes ahead and refunds $250......... again, P saying this was on advice from his lawyer (not buying lawyer story even a tiny bit)....... P had $1000, but returned $250 - D out $750 for the canceled contract which he says has a non-penalty clause......... now MM needs to figure out why P thinks he should collect full price for gig (he has already collected half the fee) for a job that was canceled - again, coming down to contract, but at most he is owed $750....... When asked P starts fast talking nonsense and MM reigns him in quickly since there isn't a lot of time left......... ok, turns out both sides are over reaching, since D wants back all the bank fees he was charged, but MM explains he'll get those wiped out once he wins this case - P just flat out wrong - if he wins (MM already told D he is going to win) but if P he would get $750 not $1500........ ah, I have prediction for hallterview - P keeps trying to interrupt MM as she announces the decision, so P will whine she wouldn't listen to him....... D collects  $750 and P gets nada........ yep, predictions comes true and P says he's going to sue a second time......
  2. deadbeat tenant/bedbugs/fleas etc: maybe not a deadbeat, seems when the critters moved in he started making his rent payment to an escrow account because landlord, D, refused to bring in a terminator - seems he already sued and the Housing Court Judge declared place uninhabitable - now he wants the deposit..... if intro is right he should collect........ D is saying P was tenant from hell who was trying to live rent free - lots of complaints but refused to let workmen make repairs - she wants the back rent $2560, which won't happen if Housing Court already ruled....... begin disliking P almost immediately - seems he is another one who wants to tell his narrative rather than answer the judge's questions...... ok, not putting money in escrow, but he was buying money orders made out to landlord and not giving them over........ months of complaints - no cold water in summer, no heat in winter, when 1 neighbor left all the fleas and bedbugs came to P's apartment, couldn't lock apartment with no locks on doors - dude has a herky jerky video that about made me seasick, place looks like a dump alright and has me questioning why he moved in........... doesn't take long for MM to switch sides - thankfully D much easier to listen to and can answer questions - so P stopped paying rent in September and they're in landlord/tenant court by mid November. ......... oops she started out ok, but faded fast when MM asked to see the judgement - all of a sudden D is stuck in her narrative and no longer listening/answering.......  I hate this type of litigant, and we have two in the case - time to start hitting the zip button....... earlier judge found problems with place and, yes, declared it uninhabitable - ordered P out within 14 days and judgement says no money owed......... uh, so why are both sides suing for thousands, sounds like housing judge gave P the boot and called money owed a wash....... ok, after I gave up and bailed, seems P convinced MM he should get back the deposit - and yeah I can see that, if Housing Court ruled place was uninhabitable why would he have to pay a deposit - not sure why housing judge didn't rule on that earlier...... then Doug had to deal with these two, but I have the zip button and can go to judge chat...... nothing of note here, landlord is big loser as she loses all the rent and the deposit, tenant lived in a dump rent free going on 4-5 months and gets back $800 deposit 
Edited by SRTouch
  • Love 4
Link to comment

Two cases where the litigants didn't listen to anyone else, and both cases they ignored the terms of the agreement they signed for this court.    Binding arbitration means exactly what it says.   I bet the housing court decision is binding too.     

I didn't like anyone in the second apartment case.    What the hell is the defendant wearing on her head?   It looks like a bathmat.   What landlord signs a lease with a tenant fresh out of housing court, and who complained about bedbug and flea infestations?     Fleas will keep coming back over and over, and bed bugs need to be eradicated.   Plaintiff says he went out of housing court and signed the lease on another apartment, but the judge apparently didn't know, because they gave plaintiff the choice in staying or moving.   So plaintiff is suing for security deposit, $400 moving expenses, and forgot to sue for two Queen bedsets.     How does plaintiff prove the infestations came from the leaving tenant?   With fleas they can hatch out from eggs after two years of dormancy.  

This morning's rerun was the FBI broke down the door to the tenant's apartment case.  Where the tenant moved out, and claimed her belongings were tossed.   However, the landlady stored all of the property, and former tenant refused to pick it up, because 'she had no where to keep it'.     That apartment building sounds like a lively place to live with drug dealing burglars downstairs, the FBI breaking down the plaintiff's door, and everything else going on.   

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Love 3
Link to comment
1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

wedding caterer kerfuffle: 

Who the hell would want to hire jumpy, goofy P, who seemed incapable of listening to anything? Oh, well - I guess D never watched this show to learn "Th cheap comes out expensive. He seems to want the cheapest available and that's what he got. They're usually cheap for a reason! I was silently pleading with JM to tell D to stop shouting. P thinks his written contract can be modified by a phone call and he had to have a consultation with his lawyer? I find it so funny when litigants talk as though they have a lawyer on retainer. What a liar.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

deadbeat tenant/bedbugs/fleas etc:

Droning squatter vs. slumlord (or "slumplord" if you are a litigant). P moves into a place that is uninhabitable and the heat doesn't work. But who needs heat in September, unless you live in the far North? Anyway, he uses fleas and bedbugs (of which we saw zero evidence?) and no heat as an excuse to not pay rent for three months. I was waiting for some blurry pics of a harmless carpet beetle as proof of this infestation, which is what we normally get when someone wants to squat, but no - not even that. Fleas cannot live on human beings alone and a little flea powder and a vacuum would have gotten rid of them (if they even existed) but P  either has absolutely no life coping skills whatsoever or he just likes to live without paying rent. P had to have someone guard his place for months due to a broken lock on the door. I guess that was more convenient than just changing the damned lock, something that is not exceedingly difficult even for someone who has never done it. Turns out landlord truly is a slumlord. Neither of them were capable of understanding or answering direct questions and kept talking on and on over JM which was getting on her last nerve and mine too.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
  1. Tenant wants deposit:  P say they rented townhouse for 2 years and landlord is trying to stick them with remodeling - neither side have before pix - P say during walk through only comment was about how clean they were leaving place........ D describes place as being left filthy and in shambles - she has VERY questionable pix which are supposed to show the filth, but MM can't see the filth. D claims she spent big bucks on professional cleaning, but has no pix to show that the professionals left place looking better than P - also wants big bucks for landscaping and resodding the lawn, except, again no before pix and P actually brought someone from homeowners association to testify the lawn was in sad shape before move in - there was a question about the carpet coming up, but that seems to have been written up at move in - D tries to argue carpet now coming up in multiple places, but no pix to show that - D wants money for cleaning carpets, but already has more than that cost in the nonrefundable pet deposit........ bottom line, P get back $1500 or so, but still leave complaining about $100 spent on a handyman having to come adjust blinds in, I guess, a vaulted ceilings window that P admits to adjusting when he moved in........ nothing much in after verdict chat, except that I think judge hubby is getting more comfortable and I'm enjoying their give and take more
  2. nonpayment for services: P was hired to help D out at D's hubby's surprise BD bash, but hasn't been paid $135 - D doesn't deny P showed up and worked 5 hours, but claims she made a mess and clogged kitchen sink......... well ok, from intro sounds like defense is she did crappy work - still doesn't mean she works for free....... D countersuing $261 for garbage deposit and light fixture repair - a tough sale unless she can prove some negligence....... first thought, P gets paid agreed wages and D nothing for kitchen Sink......... must be nap time cuz these folks are off putting - what it boils down to, at end of night P wanted to be paid, D, who I'm guessing is Jewish, refuses to deal with money until after sundown next day - not refuses to pay because of the crappy work and/or damage, but will pay next day after sundown........ D has hissy fit when P doesn't accept that answer and goes to D's adult son to try to collect - kerfuffle, P isn't paid - next day after sundown she calls to collect and no response - next morning, Sunday morning at 8am, she texts saying is she doesn't get paid NOW she's going to sue - later she saying she's going to be in area, can she stop and get paid - is told no way, if she shows up D will call cops (D didn't like threat of lawsuit less than 48 hours after party........ ok, P out of line being so quick to threaten lawsuit, and D out out line threatening to call cops....... as expected, worker gets paid - countersuit goes nowhere - first day hasn't proved P caused damage through negligence, then questionable receipts showing cost of repairs........ P gets  $135 wage - D gets nothing. ........... oh my, hallterview is a hoot - better than the case - D goes off about how she couldn't present her defense - by golly she had a witness she didn't even get to call - she's lived in the house 26 years and the string on the basement light has never broken before (I skipped that part, but half her countersuit is for a basement light that broke when P went down to get something)........ 
Edited by SRTouch
  • Love 5
Link to comment

Today's new virtual case is a whiny landlord, vs. jerky tenants over the security deposit.     What realtor or landlord doesn't take photos of damages, but only takes a photo of the after cleaning?       Another case where I want to slap all of the litigants.  ANother landlord without proof of damages, dirt, or the move in or move out condition.  

What a ridiculous case.  (Landlord received $100, tenants received the rest of the security deposit back). 

(Judge John seems much more at home on camera, and he seems to be enjoying himself.)

Is the plaintiff in the next case wearing a pajama top?    Both litigants again sound like whiny brats.     I agree with the plaintiff, either the defendant breaks all of the sabbath rules, or never followed them at all.    No way she would be that strict about following the sabbath rules, but have all of the activities she did on the sabbath.   

 

 

  • Love 4
Link to comment

The pandemic format is starting to grate on my nerves.  Too much talking over each other.  They need to implement some sort of back and forth process, like muting the mic on the other side when one side is talking.    Judge John is definitely starting to feel more comfortable in front of the cameras for sure.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I really need to see the pyjama-clad litigant.

Just because I think you're so swell . . . 

Capture.JPG.36c08683abaf2bddfd5750e9e14c4a8f.JPG

Loved the defendant's argument that plaintiff should have to pay over $100 for the repair of a light switch string . . . because that string was there and working fine for 26 years and it never broke before!!!!  Can you say "past due"?

  • LOL 5
  • Love 2
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Just because I think you're so swell . . . 

Capture.JPG.36c08683abaf2bddfd5750e9e14c4a8f.JPG

Loved the defendant's argument that plaintiff should have to pay over $100 for the repair of a light switch string . . . because that string was there and working fine for 26 years and it never broke before!!!!  Can you say "past due"?

Oh, my! Thank you. I will be searching YT tomorrow at the crack of dawn , not only for Ms. P.J. but for the Eternal String!

  • LOL 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment

The string is definitely something you need to see.   Also, the defendant claims she keeps kosher, and can't do anything on Sabbath.  That includes not giving presents, and using appliances supposedly, so why is the same defendant having her husband's party that night?    Nothing added up in the defendant's side of the case.  

I was so glad to see Judge John comfortable on camera, and having fun.    

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Love 5
Link to comment
18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I am annoyed. No TPC here today. I got some football game and have no idea why. 😡

I really need to see the pyjama-clad litigant.

There is no TPC for the rest of the week because of baseball/football for us.  😡

I couldn't find it at a different time.  I thought that it was pre-empted for everyone.  I'm really disappointed 😦

Edited to add: It's on ABC around 1-something AM this week.  The time varies somewhat.

Edited by aemom
  • Useful 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, aemom said:

There is no TPC for the rest of the week because of baseball/football for us.  😡

I couldn't find it at a different time.  I thought that it was pre-empted for everyone.  I'm really disappointed 😦

Edited to add: It's on ABC around 1-something AM this week.  The time varies somewhat.

Oh, thank you! I should have checked around myself and could have seen the PJ lady. There's an uploader now on YT posting the new eps, so maybe I can catch it there.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
  1. dog fight case:  P after lotto money after D dog ran out of the house to attack their leashed dog as Mrs P was walking by - court max of 5 grand for admittedly bad attack, but actual vet bills half the amount...... couple interesting points in this case - first an example of difference between level of proof between civil and criminal court - smug D claims no way should she have to pay after criminal case was dismissed - problem is no one has a record of the ruling, so who knows why it was dropped...... P completely credible as she describes walking by D door which was cracked open and suddenly seeing D's pitty grabbing and shaking her dog from behind - when her dog manages to escape and run home she doesn't stay to watch where the pit goes, but she recognizes it as neighbor's dog and notices D's door now open wider...... when she gets inside poor dog has run to husband and in bad shape, so off they go to the vet, calling HOA office to report incident........ turns out D out of town, and had someone coming in to take care of dog........ HOA doesn't get answer from D when they call, so they call D's sis who lives in same community - sis contacts P and P after talking things over everyone agrees that they'll wait until D is back in town, which also will give Vet more time to assess damage and give an accurate estimate on cost........  now we see video from D's dogsitter...... oh, my, a video of this guy belongs in dictionary under tweeting crackhead....... as I said, P is credible - D dogsitter not so much......... then defense really falls apart as D story doesn't match D witness timeline......... MM has heard enough to say there's enough circumstantial evidence to award damages - WTH is P asking for? In addition to vet bills, they want spoiled vacation, lost wages etc etc etc - they get the vet bills which comes to about half what they want......... funny exchange in after verdict chat - seems D dog is named Gucci, and she tries to argue mistaken identity, saying some other neighborhood dog resembles who Gucci - Judge John cracks us up when he says MM spotted the "Gucci knockoff" in the pix right away
  2. ebay purchase fail: supposedly P sold his locked safe to D, D couldn't open safe, protested to ebay and purchase price refunded - problem is purchase price was a grand, and D paid an additional $500 in shipping - D says he still out the 500 it cost to get worthless safe, and he's not willing too pay shipping took send it back........ both sides asking for more than they'really out - apparently P was original purchase price of 2 grand even though he sold it for $1000 - D countersuit closer to reality - he wants to be paid what he's out for shipping, which is reasonable, but is adding a couple hundred in retroactive storage fees.......... thing about this case is that I have a similar electronic safe - if forget the combination I can call the manufacturer, provide proof of purchase/model/serial number and they provide a code to open and reset combination - these two don't have proof of purchase so they're on their own. ........... testimony about what you expect - P is shifty eyed con man - his tells us safe was abandoned by 7 11 store when it moved out, so he got this 200 lb waist high ATM type safe which clerks can get change from but can't open - apparently guys who came to clean out/demo the empty store gave it to him - so, yeah, no wonder manufacturer wasn"t helpful in opening it - his story is he sold as is with a warning it hadn't been tested........ apparently that was enough for D, who admits he 'assumed' it worked, never asked and figured once he had it he could figure out how to open it........... both sides very iffy - don't know if P really got this thing for free, but for sure before he sold it for a thousand bucks he should have contacted 7 11, the registered owner - apparently, when P listed it on ebay he listed it in a section where stuff is sold for parts, so he says he didn't need to say thing didn't work in his ad......... D trying to get something cheap - pretty much admits he knew it wouldn't open, but he bought it on the assumption he could get it open....... my feeling is neither is honest & doubt either contacted 7 11 asking for a release do that the safe people would give them a pass code.......... MM pretty much decides the most treat the transaction as legitimate and she agrees with Ebay decision that D bought safe as a working safe and that she accepts their decision to refund purchase price - so, question comes who pays the shipping - well, seems when D bought the safe part of deal was he paid shipping - MM and ebay say sale should have never happened, and P owes the shipping - D gets the purchase price (actually already got refunded by ebay) but $500 shipping cost today from P - forget storage........ P gets safe back, but he has to pay for shipping it back - MM gives him a couple weeks to get safe, after that she says it's abandoned property.......... oh, way P doubled his $1000 is that he wants lost revenue because when ebay refunded the money they wouldn't let him sell anything else until he paid for the refund, which MM explains is his problem, not D's........ MM mentioned that working group this safe is worth 6 grand, so is this thing is legit worth the time to get the release from 7 11 to get pass code....... 
Edited by SRTouch
  • Love 3
Link to comment
On 9/28/2020 at 10:18 AM, CrazyInAlabama said:

This morning's rerun is the bizarre case of the Russian or Ukrainian upstairs neighbor, being sued by the woman who owns the downstairs condo.   The upstairs woman has a 10 year old that lives with the husband, but the husband, and child live elsewhere, because as the husband says, "She needs her space

That case was a doozy!!!  It seemed like the man had imported his mail order bride and got way more than he bargained for.  Clearly,  the woman was BSC and he just dumped her at the apartment to let the neighbors suffer for his bad choices.

I wanted it to be a 90 Day Fiance crossover...

 

  • LOL 3
Link to comment

I can't tell you how much I loathe the defendant's useless whining over her dog not doing this attack.    I bet it's not her first rodeo in the court for a dog attack.   

 This shows how being a part time resident goes against you in some locations.   As Judge Marilyn says, this isn't the attacking dog's first time running loose, or attacking.    Some places (I have a lot of family in that area) if you are a long time resident, and the other party is an outsider, or part-time resident like the plaintiffs, nothing will ever go against the defendant in this case.   

 Look at the nasty smirk on the defendant's face when the plaintiff husband is describing the attacked dog's wounds.   The defendant's dog didn't have any current rabies shots either.   

The dog sitter is absolutely lying to support the defendant, she pays him, and he won't go against her.    

So Judge Marilyn just said the defendant is contrite?     No she isn't, and she doesn't care.   $2700+ to plaintiffs.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Love 6
Link to comment
1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Look at the nasty smirk on the defendant's face when the plaintiff husband is describing the attacked dog's wounds.   The defendant's dog didn't have any current rabies shots either.   

Uh dispicable!   Some days I wonder why I suffer through court shows - it seems like the world is bursting with irresponsible pet owners and human parents.

UO here, but I'm not hating on the Harvey so much right now.  I think the viewer questions are fairly interesting and good little time fillers.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I can't tell you how much I loathe the defendant's useless whining over her dog not doing this attack.    I bet it's not her first rodeo in the court for a dog attack.   

She also was very dismissive towards the whole proceedings, probably because whatever monetary award will not come out of her pocket so she does not care. Then again, she also does not care about what harm her "gentle" pet does.

 

1 hour ago, zillabreeze said:

UO here, but I'm not hating on the Harvey so much right now.  I think the viewer questions are fairly interesting and good little time fillers.

He is much better employed responding to concrete and specific inquiries than trying to elicit an intelligent contribution from the peanut gallery.

  • Love 5
Link to comment

I kept thinking - those are pajamas, right?  That's the best court attire you can come up with?

I actually watched one of the little videos on their FB page and MM was saying how she's also fascinated by people in their homes.  I wonder how she felt about the PJs.  

  • Love 3
Link to comment
43 minutes ago, VartanFan said:

I kept thinking - those are pajamas, right?  That's the best court attire you can come up with?

I actually watched one of the little videos on their FB page and MM was saying how she's also fascinated by people in their homes.  I wonder how she felt about the PJs.  

It would be funny to think of the production crew advising before filming (via Zoom or Skype).  

"Um . . . can you take us into another room so we can check a different background?  Your bedroom is a bit "busy" for the camera.  Oh, this is your only room?  Um, can you make the bed and pick the clothes up off the floor?"

"Ma'am, could you change out of your pajamas before we start filming your case?"  (Although, honestly, I pretty much live in my knit nightgowns from Walmart these days.  No wear and tear on my "leave the house" wardrobe.)

  • Love 4
Link to comment

Roomie splitup: friends decide to split rent on an apartment - 19yo girls had met in college in NC, both transfer to Florida college and now ready to play at being adults - problems arise, no surprise, when #1 girl's bf becomes a semi-permanent guest - roomie (#2) says she wasn't comfortable with the guy having his own key and pretty much there 24/7 (she also was partying going on) - #2 talks to landlord and gets permission to transfer to a smaller/cheaper place......... well yeah, landlord now collects on 2 apartments, so of course he's happy, but she has a commitment with roomie to pay half the rent in first apartment & owes it to ex-roomie to find a new roomie to take up slack........ not expecting much here - sound like two spoiled kids, #1 was willing to impose her gf on #2 and #2 fine with sticking ex-friend/roomie with full rent - have to see if bf's presence rises to level of constructive eviction......... like, it's kind of hard, like,  in the moment, like listening to #1 - slight difference, seems when #2 pcomplained about bf, #1 sort of, but not really, moved out - and it wasn't just 1 bf, seems #1 had given a key to her bf, broken up, and now a second bf was given a key (listening to #1 you would never know we were talking at least 2 bfs were given keys in that first semester,  but MM pre-read the texts)........ # 1 thinks things were going alright, but says #2 was homesick more than anything else - which wouldn't explain why intro has her moving to another apartment and not going home........ apparently things kind of blew up one day and #2 texts #1 at work complaining about bf - #1 tells us how she ducked into bathroom to call and they spent half an hour crying/fighting/whatever and I can't help but think what a wonderful employee/coworker she must be......... over to #2, and sounds like MM sort of agrees with the lonely/homesick notion, as texts also indicate #2 is unhappy that her only friend from NC (#1) is now abandoneding her to spend time with bf - they get over that rough patch, #2 gets her own bf, spends lot of time at work (THOUGHT they came south to go to school, but maybe they dropped out in NC and are now just working ? - neither mention attending classes - just bfs drugs and work)........ next hiccup is covid - yep, all this was last spring and things smoothed out and they were starting to do there own things until March when covid started shutting things down......... well, maybe not - #2 tells us she just happened to go home to visit - not because of covid but to wish Daddy happy birthday - whole at home she talked over the roommate situation and decided to stay there instead of heading back to Florida......... sounds like excuses to break the lease, as she knows covid won't work, so now she brings up how #1 and bf were doing drugs - which has #1 bouncing in her seat trying to interrupt and MM signaling timeout to her - #2 says she even called the police and was told she might get in trouble if there was a raid - no there was no raid, but she was afraid the cops might come knocking - so MM asks just what she thought cops might have found - she says she knew or suspected xanax, molly and acid - ah, but MM has the texts and there was more - seems it wasn't just #1 and bf with these illicit drugs, MM has texts about the marijuana the girls were growing together and now #1 gets to tell us about #2's 28yo bf selling them pot and trying to get them to score some codeine, and she claims to have lots of pix of #2 smoking weed........ oh my, wonder what both sets of parents are thinking about now ......... uh, understanding MM skepticism about #2's concerns about drug use a bit more - not buying this constructive eviction theory and am back to #2 can't just bail on her commitment to pay half the rent....... this might actually get interesting - normally, I would expect #2 to have to pay rent until #1 had a reasonable about of time to find a new roommate - but, in these times of covid does finding a replacement roommate have the same timeline as pre-pandemic days - I'm thinking yes, but when MM asks #1 seems awfully unconcerned as she says she hasn't bothered with recommended guidelines and wasn't concerned enough to get tested when she thought she might be developing symptoms...... don'cha just love hearing she's a waitress on the beach who didn't bother getting good tested....... anyway, forget drug use and impending raids, #2 comes back after going home and promptly announces she's moving out and going home to the parents since her mall job is closed due to covid - sort of apologizes, but says she's already talked to the landlord and that #1 qualifies to lease the apartment on her own (yeah, except if #2's job at the mall is shutting down,  how long before #1 losing her waitress job at the beach......... D has no defense, only question is how much does she owe....... IIRC the lease ends at end of June and #2 moved out (without notice and signed lease with landlord require 60 day notice) end of March....... I'm thinking #2 owes until end of lease........ that bit early on about #2 getting a smaller apartment really was a suggestion that #1 move into a 1 bedroom after #2 moves out - yes, landlord would have permit that, but not until current lease was over in a couple months....... and, that's the ruling - #2 owes through end of lease........ in hallterview #2 pretty much admits there was no constructive eviction, she wanted out of lease when covid shut down her job and parents told her come home where she could shelter in place without paying rent 

after verdict has judges telling story about their experiences when virus shut things down - seems Judge John was visiting/sking in Colorado and after getting home learned he had been exposed - Judges self quarantined and got tested, but their kids and dog weren't allowed to visit until results got back - buuuttttt they couldn't stand being separated from the dog, so went and picked him up from the yard before the results were in........ totally get that - for me the hardest thing would be not having the cats around - I'm so used to 1 2 or 3 cats joining me on the bed at night I have trouble sleeping if they're not there (never have all 6 since they squabble over position and take turns)...... 

unpaid loan to neighbor - or was it a gift: couple fugly neighbors - woman says she made series of loans to guy across the street while guy says they were gifts until he found a new woman....... in preview before break P hurts her case when she argues she was never sweet on D and never even spoke to him until he split from the wife - uh, that suggests to MM that maybe she WAS sweet on him and with wife gone she started trying to buy his affection........ not that interested so doubt I'll  watch until the end....... over time P says she helped him pay bills, and he repaid her sometimes, $100 once, his mom brought her $500, but says he still owes over $900..... jitters too impressed with her case - doesn't sound like she's sure of how much or when money was exchanged and without some contemporary evidence - or maybe a text from D acknowledging amount and promise to pay it see this going nowhere....... zip zip...... no worth rewinding, but apparently part of her claim is to pay for the dog he bought on installment - really, dude didn't have money for Verizon and utilities but went out and bought some expensive dog (didn't hear breed or total amount, but woman claiming to have paid $440 towards dog purchase) - even if there were no 'loans' why is this guy spending get big money on a dog whend he needs neighbor lady to give him gifts to pay his bills....... not getting in the buying dog instead of rescuing one........ more nonsense yada yada and more zipping......... on top of everything, seems dude might be social security disability scammer who cheated on taxes - not sure where that came from, and zipped some more......... neither will admit there was any relationship, yet both say hundreds of dollars were either gifted or loaned, and at least $600 repaid - problem for P is, as I said early on, she has no firm evidence of dates, amounts, or commitment to repay - problem first D is that he argues these were gifts, but has promised in texts to repay money and has paid back some....... D either a bum or con man taking advantage, but don't see P winning...... rough justice has MM awarding $356 - not sure why - may have zipped past things or maybe this is a spanking cuz she thinks D is a scumbag....... oh, and wonder if intro was correct in that the fugly tax cheating disability scammer has himself a new woman paying his bills now that P has cut him off and demanded payment

after verdict seems Judge John also concluded D was caught scamming disability - also, despite many texts over a couple years where P asked for repayment D never acts surprised and says these were gifts

Edited by SRTouch
  • Love 4
Link to comment

Yes, in the unpaid loan case, it was a case of plaintiff having the hots for defendant.    Then when defendant found another woman, suddenly everything was a loan, not a gift.   Also, I bet a lot of people called the disability authorities, and claimed defendant was a scammer.   Even though defendant claims he does have a disability, and proved it to the doctors from the disability program, he still has to do something with income tax filings.    I think he may have a disability, but he can also be a scammer too.    

  • Love 5
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Katy M said:

So, this is the first episode I'd watched in forever and I only saw the first two cases, but man, all four litigants were mostly reasonable and well-spoken. What happened?

Just sat down after being out and about - so no recap today.

As for the question, haven't watched today, but 'reasonable and well-spoken' litigants are as rare this season as in past. There have been some obvious format differences due to covid - less Harvey, and discussion with MM's hubby, also a judge, after her decision. I'm liking Judge John - we hear more of how she made her decision as well as glimpses into their home life. Some of the cases are here BECAUSE of the pandemic.  Yesterday for example, a college girl went home for a visit in mid-March and covid hit. She decided to stay home when shut things down. Not that bad an idea, except she was leaving her roomie, another college girl, to pay full rent/utilities for remainder of their lease.

 

Update: what a disappointment. When I went to the DVD to watch 4 well spoken litigants, I found the DVD had hiccupped during the recording. I ended up with two15 minute recordings, missing 30 minutes from the middle 😢😢😢😢

Edited by SRTouch
  • Love 1
Link to comment
On 9/29/2020 at 7:40 PM, AZChristian said:

Just because I think you're so swell . . . 

Capture.JPG.36c08683abaf2bddfd5750e9e14c4a8f.JPG

Loved the defendant's argument that plaintiff should have to pay over $100 for the repair of a light switch string . . . because that string was there and working fine for 26 years and it never broke before!!!!  Can you say "past due"?

So happy!  The first 1 am recording I taped had most of this episode, so I got to see the Pajama lady case.  I tried to think whether or not that top could be part of a dress than buttoned down the front, and.... no.  I just can't see it.  Those have to be pajamas! LMAO!

I am not Jewish, but I grew up in a Jewish neighbourhood, and even went to day camp in a synagogue for 4 summers as a kid (long story), so I know a fair bit about the religion.  P was right about D - you would not really be having this party if you really followed the Sabbath that closely.  Also regardless of what happened, you should expect to pay someone for their work when they are done.  D should have had an envelope with money ready to go somewhere on a counter earlier that day.  When the P was ready to leave, she could have directed her to take that envelope.  She would not be handling anything, the P would be paid, and everyone would be happy.  Expecting her to wait until whenever to get paid is just bad ju-ju.  At the same time, the P jumped the gun by threatening to sue so quickly.

$128 for someone to put the string back on the lightbulb?  I LOVED her sad sack demo of a lightbulb with a piece of twine hanging. 🤣 Was it a gold plated string with royalty coming to install it?  One of the most blatant BO-NAN-ZA instances I've seen in a long time.

 

The other case where the Ps wanted their deposit back - the D just would NOT SHUT UP.  I'm surprised that JM did not spank her harder than she did for all the interrupting. Another case of "trust me judge."  She should not be surprised that she had to pay it all back minus $100. 

I wonder if JM has always watched the halterviews in the past?  In her talks with hubby, she's definitely referenced a few of them.  I really like this aspect - I hope they keep him in the future and dump Levin's peanut gallery.  I am even finding Levin somewhat tolerable to watch when he answers the questions that people write in.  😲

 

Edited by aemom
Sue and sure are not the same thing
  • Love 1
Link to comment

Breaking news WH Press Secretary tests positive - as I type 2 more positives in the WH Press corp........ but apparently that news is just a blur as TPC goes on 

ex'es feud over frequent flyer points: not sure, does this qualify over asking a judge to mediate division of pots and pans? Apparently ex hubby has decided the value of the purloined points comes to almost $3600...... ex wife of 23 years says he's just a petty bitter man trying to make trouble - admits she used points - to pay for a trip for their son and his gf - but D argues these were points in a family account and she had every right to use them to pay for son's trip - as long as she had to  omega to court she wants 5 grand for harrassment and missing money....... if these were a joint marital assets the settlement should have addressed them - send it back to divorce court for that judge to rule on........ whoa! D certainly looks rough for her national TV debut. ......... if I'm hearing P correctly, they separated 3 years ago and actually divorced in 2019 - he's arguing these point derive from a card he used and paid for exclusively - at one point, when a daughter was planning her wedding, he added the daughter to the account - he says so daughter could use the card for wedding expenses and later honeymoon on the points - he's saying the points he's suing over were unused points from his card after he alone paid the bills......... MM asks how D got access, something about how she's a lawyer and guess implying lawyers know all the dirty tricks........ ahhhhhh I thought P was going for a bald genie in the bottle look,  but now see those dangling ear rings are actually wires for ear buds - yes, my tv is dieing and keeps getting darker - hope to replace this cheap 8yo Sam's club tv with a better/older TV this week..........anyway, within a short time of signing the papers dividing the marital property, ex-wife gets password from daughter and orders stuff from amazon - and of course later uses the points........ over to lawyer ex-wife defendant - uhhhhhh if she's right about ex hubby being a petty bitter man scorned, she doing her best to show us a woman scorned - hobby - not just an attorney, she's actually a divorce attorney - seems hubby is retired and wifey had to pay him 'a lot of money' - ok, D may be a lawyer and know the proper terminology, but she can't help trying to talk over the judge - first, the card may have become "his" in the divorce - but the account was opened before the separation/divorce and it was never switched over from a family account......... I'm back to thinking they need to reopen the divorce proceedings and have that judge decide........ ah, but that isn't MM's way, she going to things out....... forget D intro about points being used for 1 trip for their son - it has now become 3 trips and D is having things delivered from Amazon on the card ex-hubby supposedly exclusively pays........ wellllllll, this may be why MM is even talking to the battling couple - there has not been a final divorce decree, just a legal separation - still joint finances, joint bank account etc - ok, messier, but I still say send it to divorce court........ having a hard time with D yakking away and almost head butting her camera while talking over MM and I'm ready to start skipping ahead as they start arguing over actual value of the missing points.......... apparently they want to split but not divorce - IIRC he is a retired firefighter, she makes more money but wants access to his benefits............. ok, MM is going to rule that this WAS a joint account and those points were marital asset owned by both - D arguing over MM that left more than half the points, conveniently ignoring fact that if they get divorced tomorrow the divorce court will split what ever is left in the account - D will have to pay half the value she used, plus pay for her own Amazon purchases....... D getting louder and more insistent arguing over MM - D actually losing ground as she's starting to piss off the lady in the robe......... well, D has stopped trying to headbutt the camera - now she's waving her pointed finger half an inch away from camera........... ok enough of this nonsense - zip zip - arguing countersuit - not interested - zip - something about P going to the bar grievance committee - petty nonsense I don't care about - sounds like he was as bad as she was........... P wins as it seems D is countersuing for stuff that predates signed separation agreement, so she gets nothing........ 

P paid buddy's way on vacation and wants to be repaid: and, of course D says it was all a gift........ friends no longer friends........ not really into this one, doing a lot of zipping....... P says he paid way for 'between jobs' buddy and I say why - why would buddy go on vacation when he's out of work and should be pinching pennys - and why work P believe the out of work guy is going to come up with the money........ going to come down to texts or maybe a signed IOU, as I don't really see a realistic expectation of repayment.......... ah MM decided it WAS a loan and orders D pay a couple grand - ok she listened to the case and I bailed early - no replaying to see how she decided to rule it was a loan....... after the verdict we learn - yeah - at one point D is ackjowledging debt and promising to start paying - just before ghosting

  • Love 2
Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...