Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

The People's Court - General Discussion


  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Of course her own daughter followed in her footsteps to become another SSM. How cute! New baby and grandbaby are nearly the same age. I didn't think I could be any more horrified, until I saw Momma, the Crypt Keeper's girlfriend. Holy shit. Lean away from the camera, you horror movie reject.

But oh, Ms. Bridie has such a shocking, sad tale she bursts into crocodile tears as she relates how perv P pulled a gun on her daughter and daughter's boyfriend! Her daughter was SIXTEEN years old! How dare he?

At this point JM has to ask her, "How old was your daughter when you were strung out on drugs and HOOKING with your mother's live-in boyfriend, just to get more drugs"?

I'm pretty sure there's not much her kids haven't seen, heard, or experienced. I would have found this all amusing, in a trashy novel kind of way, but thinking about children deliberately being brought into and raised in this filth makes me furious.

Ms. Bridie said she worked in home care. Of course she does, or did. Seems she's now sucking up gov. assistance. What with her new blessed event and all, the taxpayers - who are stretched to the limit -  should be happy to pony up the funds to support her.  Plaintiff slandered her? How is that possible? What could he say about her that was any worse than what she admitted to here?

Even Judge John commented that they are "shameless".

I think I've had enough TeeVee for today.

Oh my, you obviously lasted longer in the mess than I did. I almost hit rewind when I heard MM telling mom-gf to be quiet in the judgement phase, but glad I didn't from your description. Sooooo I missed all that about the next generation and gun pulling on daughter (grand daughter's bf)

  • Love 3
Link to comment

I don't even remember how much they were asking for, what it was for, and whether anybody got anything.

If PC is to maintain any sense of integrity, the contract between litigants and the production company should provide an "out" for production.  If any of the litigants behave in such a way that the show's reputation would suffer from airing them, the show should have the right to refuse to air the show, the litigants would be given a small appearance fee, and the case could be sent back to small claims court.  Judge Judy does this on occasion, usually when she feels like the case has been invented by the litigants so they can split any judgment money.

Some guy who is bedding a mother, her two daughters (and probably all the family dogs) should NEVER have passed the "ready to go on the air" test.  

  • Useful 1
  • Love 6
Link to comment
6 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Some guy who is bedding a mother, her two daughters (and probably all the family dogs) should NEVER have passed the "ready to go on the air" test.  

There are a few cases that never should have been here, but on Springer or Wilkos: The guy who said he was blind and ran off with defendants teenaged daughter and was subsequently wrangled by the cops as he wielded a sword and threatened them, the parent defs who harboured plaintiff's daughter under their son's bed, and this latest one with the bottom feeders/druggies/scumbags/prostitute who made my flesh crawl and that surpassed the others for the sheer depravity. I'm sure there is a big audience for this kind of nauseating sleaze, but I'm not among them. There's lots of other platforms for this filth - none of which I've ever watched -  but Levin and his crew are determined to compete with the worst of the worst "entertainment."

The show actually listened to viewers' complaints about the unbearable, no-neck HallClown, Curt, and yanked him from the hallterviews. Maybe if we gripe about the cesspool crap we're given, they'll stop that too?

  • Useful 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment

neighbor fence fight: very simple case. P long time renter living next door to arrogant fat slob who claims to have been living there for decades - but P points out that while D's family has owned/lived there all that time, D is fairly recent arrival - seems he was away in hoosegow for awhile........ anyway D decided to put up a retaining wall to protect his fence. Seems the fence was 2-3 on D's side of property line and, though we never got to hearing about a survey, the retaining wall would have also been on D's family side - thing is, D didn't bother to tell P about the work. And when P investigated after seeing strangers in his yard he discovered a big mess created as they dug a trench to install the block wall. MM took instant dislike to D - not sure how much was fact he thought a Hawaiian mumu shirt was appropriate court wear or just his arrogance and insulting manner towards everything not him - and it did NOT help when he tried to pass off manufactured post-dated evidence from P's landlord as permission to enter property P was renting - yeah, I got permission from ''real" owner - except permission does NOT give permission to come on property - oh, and is dated a couple months after the fact....... then there was fact D spent all his time belittling and insulting P - as Judge John said in after verdict chat, judges DON'T LIKE that talk in court.......oh - reason we didn't need to hear about a survey was, while D talked about the finished product being on his family property, he admitted his workers trespassed and made a mess in P's yard - P not after big money, just $500 to clean up mess, so that's what MM ordered...... 

room rental: Plaintiffs rented room from fellow church members (D wife minister at church), but end up proving old saying about not knowing someone until you live with them - things start going wrong from beginning - turns out landlord/minister couple upset with constant bickering between P couple, and I guess P hubby was seen taking swig of juice straight from container......... anyway, big kerfuffle, P want $650 refund from rent and deposit and D want 5 grand because of trash talk at church (says if they win thd 5 grand will go to charity)......... ok, not sure how long I'll stick with this one as P are tag team testifying - first 1 talks then the other - and they want everything said THEIR way -  MM says something along lines of so, yo needed a place and rented a room in D's home and D hubby corrects her, no, we didn't NEED a room, but when D wife heard how how we were paying at extended stay,hotel she offered to rent us a room....... good grief, like MM said, you rented a room...... then it's P wife turn to correct MM about how much rent & deposit they paid, and really amount stays same but P recorded it....... soooooo rent was $725 and deposit of $300 - guess they aren't asking full refund but some sort of prorated rent....... ok, P Says she is also a minister and was friends with D....... don't really care, ready to start zipping unless we hear evidence soon......... zip zip....... something g about police being called and a lock out - seems there is a dispute over when they moved out, when locks were changed, and whether or not property was left behind....... P talking about a police report that would prove their version, but don't have it to show (also, when I start watching after zipping both Ps are yakking at same time - MM sends P hubby off to get a copy of the police report, but I figure that's just a ploy to get him gone so she'll only have to listen to one at a time........ after commercial D wants to ramble on about their friendship and MM shuts her down, saying she only wants to hear about the case about the defamation - bunch of hearsay about what P told church, nothing actionable since they about church folks didn't really believe/pick sides in the snit......... P hubby comes back with a case number but no police report....... I watched maybe a third of the case, not sure how MM put up with these 4 yakking over each other and her for 30 minutes without ever producing any evidence (not totally true,  as seems D  (landlord) can produce proof he mailed intent to keep deposit - P says never received but D has post office receipt of certified letter sent).......... I guess D provided proof of some damage, so they keep $100 of the security - P can not prove the illegal lockout, so landlord keeps rent - P gets $200 of $650 asked for........ D gets squat of the 5 grand for defamation/slander......... oh my, get a load of the rant from P hubby in hallterview!! Love it when they cut back to Doug and he can barely keep from LOL as he cuts the rant off.... from the after verdict I gather P hubby did this true out case, ranting about being a "strong man" who takes care of his wife, which has judge john laughing about his carrying on when the judge hearing the case is about woman....... about most tempted to go back to see what P said - but no, got enough of about most chuckle in hallterview anymore would be too much

Edited by SRTouch
  • Love 5
Link to comment

So in the room rent case, if the defendants could afford $700 a week for a fancy extended stay (the cheap ones here are less than $800 a month), then why didn't they rent a corporate apartment, until they could find something permanent?    All four of the litigants sound horrible to live with.   And how do people who were living in extended stay, and couldn't get a permanent place to live, get a brand new Range Rover?  

Mr Tynon's case, the postal inspectors are relentless, and if you cross them, they will find you.   Good for the postal inspectors.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Useful 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment

Curiosity got the better of me, and I did a quick google search on Mr. Tynon (the defendant in the fence case).  This guy (who mentioned having lived in Thailand) had to be extradited back to the US after being accused of mail fraud in a Ponzi scheme.  He'd better be careful . . . he's already spent 5+ years at Terminal Island Federal Prison, and has to pay back $2,800,000 in restitution and is still under supervised probation.  The jerk actually started a rumor that he was dead after he ran to Thailand.  Postal inspectors found him there and started the extradition.

Edited by AZChristian
I do so know how to spell "probation."
  • Useful 5
Link to comment
3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

neighbor fence fight:

I wonder if def ever looks in the mirror? If so, you would think he wouldn't disparage and mock someone else's appearance. Plaintiff is "Little John" who has a "Napoleon complex"? Really? What does loser, jailbird, lives-with-Mommy-and Aunty have? A Jabba complex? I notice he made a point of saying his crime was a "white collar crime", as though it makes it okay if you're a thief or a scammer as long as you don't get your hands dirty. He owns nothing, but lumbers around the property - where it seems he's lived all his life with the 'rents except for his jail term -  like some petty dictator, issuing orders and tresspassing. That's okay, because P just rents his property and therefore has no rights. Maybe P doesn't have a mommy to take care of him.  Still, I enjoyed this case for its lack of violence and/or vandalism.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

room rental:

Wow. We get more of the Devout - they all go to church -  with a distinct lack of Christian charity. What else is new? JM had a hard time getting facts, what with all the oration by P, Mr. Denson. Plaintiff wife, the minister, is "overcome with gratitude" that def felt sorry for her and her pedantic hubby who could afford to pay 3,000$ a month to stay at some extended-stay place and offered to let them move into her house for a fraction of that rent. If they could pay 3K/mth why couldn't they get a place of their own? Anyway, def's husband was less than thrilled when informed about his new housemates, which I totally understand.  P, Mr. Denson, is very eager to tell JM how he dominates this marriage, and how his wife has never been permitted to put her name on anything or buy a car. He takes care of her! I suppose he thought JM would be impressed by that. How wrong he was. He also informs JM that he "allowed (def's husband) to speak." That was big of you, Mr. Denson, even though you have no respect for this man who "lives in his wife's house."

With all this kerfuffle going on, Mr. Denson "moves" his wife to other accomodations, which is a condo he got, either before or after he got his new Range Rover. I guess all that was so expensive he begged to file his court case for free, claiming he's "indigent" and homeless. I'm assuming he didn't drive up to the courthouse in his Range Rover. Is this kind of scamming the Christian thing to do? Defs are reaching a bit, saying they had Yo-Yo clean the room and it cost them money. Don't think so. If I had some strangers living in one my bedrooms for a few months I would automatically think I needed to clean it after their departure. Mr. Denson sums it all up by saying that def is "jealous" of him. That pic provided by the Defs of the P's room with some sort of clipart figure pasted on it? I have no idea what that was, but couldn't be bothered trying to find out.

Have we seen a lot of  cases of people living in a room in someone's house that didn't result in the police being called? I'm sure there must be some but I can't recall them at this moment.

I just have to make a little commentary on women who have husbands who take care of everything for the duration of the marriage: Believe it or not, he could die or he could leave you and then you are alone, not knowing where the money is, or how to drive, or how to pay a bill or write out a check and being unable to buy anything because you have zero credit history and "he did all that". It happens a lot and it's tragic. 

21 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Curiosity got the better of me, and I did a quick google search on Mr. Tynon (the defendant in the fence case)

Interesting, but not surprising.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
38 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I notice he made a point of saying his crime was a "white collar crime", as though it makes it okay if you're a thief or a scammer as long as you don't get your hands dirty.

And Mr. Hutt (as in Jabba the) scammed money from members of the Rotary Club where he was one of the regional governors.  They must be desperate for people to serve on those committees.

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

Except of course for the defendant's shirt. My eyes still hurt.

I noticed JM snarking about that, telling him if he weren't such an giant asshole he could be in Hawaii now.

38 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

And Mr. Hutt (as in Jabba the) scammed money from members of the Rotary Club where he was one of the regional governors. 

Nice. Scamming from people who put you in a position of trust makes you a special kind of jerkoff loser.

  • Love 4
Link to comment

baby daddy took the car: sad case about broke single mommy of 5 who needed a car to haul around her brood - one of her baby daddys co-signed a loan so she could get a van, but then came and towed car away - says she paid $7226.42 for car which he now has....... 1 of those never married but mixed finances couple cases that JJ hates..........  baby daddy argues car was never in her name, says he put down the 10 grand down payment and paid off the loan - says now baby mama refuses to let him see their 2yo daughter, so he took back the car that is in his name - he wants 8 grand for bills he paid while with baby mama......... oh dear, expect MM to go full into family counselor - both claiming to have put money into van but apparently it was always legally his even if she was primary user hauling around her kids - not seeing dude getting thousands spent supporting her while they were together.......... ok, her claim on car is based on her trading in her old vehicle and paying 5 grand in tax return money towards the new van - then she says he was to make payments while she covered insurance - gathering that he paid the money towards down payment, but she says she had evidence showing she paid him back 5 grand towards down payment (plus she gave dealer her car as trade in)......... ok, things getting murky as SSM (of 5) testifies - seems he wanted to use van to take trip and she refused since that was her only transportation - seems both were on title, but since she was paying insurance she only had her name on policy - says they were no longer dating by time he wanted to "borrow" car, and she refused, saying she was willing to finished paying off car from that point......... hmmmmm if I heard right the sheriff was involved to letting him take car - but why if she was on title and registration and the only insured driver......... sooooooo seems they agreed he was going to buy out her interest in car, 3 weeks go by while he gathers the 5 grand, then he messages her saying he'll be there next day to get it - whoa says SSM, she was expecting to have time to get replacement vehicle, not just be left without wheels - so she puts skids on deal........ when he shows up big kerfuffle, cops come, and sheriff does NOT let him take car that day, but he comes back next week with sheriff and a tow truck and they tow it away - huh? MM asks what changed over the weekend that now sheriff is letting him have car........ over to defendant to maybe get the answer - or at least his version of events....... ok, explanation sort of slippery, but in Florida, when 2 names appear on title with it saying either/OR owns vehicle, then either of the named people can pay off the loan and get car titled soley in their name.......... ok, if I have this right, dude was prepared to pay her 5 grand in cash, but now learns he can take sole possession by paying off the remaining 2+ grand - so he was able remove her from title and get sheriff to tow vehicle and give it to him......... MM shown shaking her head at baby daddy using the technicality to take car from SSM of 5...... well, ok, MM says, everything legal, but they had a deal where he was to pay her 5 grand for sole title/possesion........ ah, now baby daddy scrambling since he thought he had pulled a fast one all nice and legal-like........ takes a little text hunting, but, yeah, baby daddy agreed to buy out SSM's interest in car for 5 grand, then did end run on legal technicality to claim it and not pay......... next a bunch of drama about their fight over baby, including possible paternity, and visitation etc which MM has no jurisdiction over and I don't really listen to - free legal advice to baby daddy that if he really wants visitation he needs to go to family court and demand his rights (MM does point out that if he does that he will probably have to start paying child support)........ as expected, he gets nothing for money he spent while they were together - also seems she blew up her 5 grand claim to 7+ grand trying to get back money she paid to insure car while she was driving it........ net award, 5 grand to baby momma........ if anything, baby daddy really looks/sounds like a jerk in hallterview and in After the Verdict judges really lay into him for taking car (I didn't mention it earlier, but part of why transportation was so important to SSM, besides just needing a car with 5 kids, was that the 2yo they share needs weekly doctor/physical therapy visits - which has Judge John saying he would rather ride a bike with two flat tires than take away the mothers ride

neighbor feud: P looking for $3860 for damages he says neighbor and his bunch of juvenile delinquents have done to his property (problem will be actually be proving damages done over years)........ maybe I shouldn't, but looking at D I can believe he has a bunch of wild ones (as we head to commercial we hear D has 5 kids during the week and an additional 3 on weekends, plus 1 more that doesn't come around, for a total of 9 offspring)- course he denies any wrongdoing, and accuses P of being a grumpy old geezer and of being the problem....... ok, genter has video surveillance, and actually witnessed hooligans committing mayhem - says first time was an 8-9 year smashing a big aquarium with a hammer and at time all he asked was for brat to help with the clean up - nope, brat didn't help but dad came to help (as MM pointed out, might not have been best idea to have 8-9yo picking up glass)......... next, wild bunch throwing stuff towards P property, and he says back window of his van, which was parked 40 feet from D property, was broken - $700 and he wanted $100 deductible of which D paid $40 and still owes $60....... geez, so far just 2 items and D accepted responsibility but never actually paid for in full - wonder if D will agree when he gets a chance to talk - nah, course not, he says he paid off the $100 in 3 payments - of course no receipts........ big ticket item is damage to siding on house - this one sort of odd, as P didn't notice damage until his long time neighbor - father of D and grandfather to wild ones that D had moved in with a couple years ago  - - came to ask P to look at his surveillance footage to see if he could identify the hooligan who egged granddad's car - well, P cameras did not film area where granddad parked........ ah, but next time P mowed he discovered beats had also egged his house - course, by that time the eggs had sat and dried out and discolored his siding - so, P wants almost 4 grand for new siding  (got two 'experts' to look at it, one said it could be painted, other recommended new siding and is the $3800 estimate) and is how he comes to a $3860 lawsuit........ thing which really frosts P us that D just shrugged off the egging incident when he went to talk about it and that was when things really blew up - P told D he was going to just start trashing g kids toys when they appeared in his yard - daddy had fit about idea his kids toys were going to be thrown away - already bad relations really hit crapper........ uh, really first time we hear much from D when he says he investigated the egging incident, and identified a different kid in the neighborhood - P says he learned about this other kid - not one of D's bunch, and talked to D's kid who hang with the egg thrower and D's kid admitted to being there, but says he didn't stop egg throwing kid cuz he was older......... uh, sorry, but not sure I would expect a kid to stand up and try to stop an order kid (think D said all his kids are 10yo and younger) - and why is P pinning blame on D's kid when there might well be another delinquent in neighborhood who did the deed......... ok, P has no case against D for siding replacement - at most his case is over $60 that D claims was repaid but can't prove repayment - really thinking D is right that P is a grumpy old geezer who hates his kids...... but D's kids really DO sound like a wild bunch in need of supervision........ another sore point is that the long time father's dog crapping in P's yard - not sure why P is presenting video of the dog doing the deed when D isn't the owner......... also, P blames D because since they moved in he's seen rats on his nighttime surveillance cameras running towards D's yard........ ok, none of this would affect his damage claim, and is just P complaining and now MM going into counselor mode......... as I thought, MM awards P $60

  • Love 5
Link to comment

Well, we had some primo breeders here today

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

sad case about broke single mommy

She may be the Queen of Bad Choices since she's a SSM of four, but that just wasn't enough for her,  so she had to continue on this path and pop out baby No.5 with some "on again, off again" boyfriend.  I guess it seemed the right thing to do at the time. Neither of them can speak proper English  - "conversated", "had came", "me and her were" -  but they're fertile as hell! Of course he pays no child support for the fruit of his loins. But SSM wasn't done with her bad decisions. She then buys a car with this boyfriend and puts it in their names as him "or" her and then feels she's entitled to some equitable distribution. I wonder if her other baby daddy(s) pay support? Yessir, she really needed another kid with some guy who could just walk away, as he did, saying, "I'm not doing this no more." Now the namby-pamby b/f wants back every cent he spent during this sometime romance, including gifts he gave. I personally felt JM was a little too sympathetic to this mature woman who has babies just because she has a functioning uterus. Baby daddy says he can't see his daughter because P "won't let him" and I'm sure he has no intention of being tested to prove paternity, although he's listed as Daddy on the birth certificate. I guess he doesn't care about seeing the kid as I doubt someone who took away his ladylove's only means of transportation isn't particularly concerned about that. Disliked both litigants. It was a nice touch, as always, when he tried to educate JM about Florida laws. You doofus! 😆It's almost as though people do everything in their power to screw up not only their own lives, but the lives of these poor kids who never asked to be brought into this mess.

Then we get an even more fertile litigant in the def, who has 8 kids with 3 or so baby mommas and they are left to run wild. Why sure, he can support them if he works 2 (or 3) jobs for the next 15 years. Better get three jobs, Dad, since you couldn't make it on your own at your age and had to pile in with YOUR daddy and a bunch of your offspring and some baby momma, who seems to spend her afternoons napping in her bedroom and must not be disturbed while this gang of kidlets are out wreaking havoc in the neighbourhood. Daddy's busy working and Mommy's busy resting in her boudoir so who is supposed to watch them? Poor ol' Grandpa, who lets his dog wander to crap on P's lawn? Def is "not my dog" and "not my kid" - he just knows it wasn't his kid who egged the house even though he wasn't there -  so absolves himself. Seeing as none of the breeders today appeared to have CEO jobs at Fortune 500 companies, it may have been a wise thing not to breed so prolifically, but too late for that.

Who the hell can afford 5 or 8 kids these days?

  • Love 4
Link to comment
4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

baby daddy took the car:

Two equally unpleasant litigants. I am sure that the underhanded plaintiff did tell the defendant that under Florida law he had no right to see his child; that lie would be quite in keeping with the character she displayed during the hearing. On the other hand, I am also convinced that the defendant was only too happy to have an apparently legal reason not to pursue judicial avenues to see his daughter because he then would have been liable for child support.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

neighbor feud: 

I felt sorry for the plaintiff – even though he was a bit of a nitpicking whiner – having to live next door to the defendant's constantly growing brood. And the granddad's dog as a bonus. Defendant obviously does not care about any mayhem caused by the various people and animals in his house, while plaintiff may be oversensitive after having to cope with them for a long time.

  • Love 7
Link to comment
49 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

I felt sorry for the plaintiff – even though he was a bit of a nitpicking whiner – having to live next door to the defendant's constantly growing brood. And the granddad's dog as a bonus. Defendant obviously does not care about any mayhem caused by the various people and animals in his house, while plaintiff may be oversensitive after having to cope with them for a long time.

I felt for him too, and was  a little dismayed at JM's dismissal of his gripes as being "crotchety". I wouldn't want a tribe like this moving in next door to me, with a gaggle of kids egging my house and smashing my windshield. I'm not blaming the children, but why should I have to suffer because someone wants to prove how manly and fecund he is (it's really not such a big accomplishment), but hasn't the time or money to take proper care of his brood?

  • Love 6
Link to comment

busted pickup windows: P, named I.C. Ealey, III (really, so his initials are ICE) says his on/off gf went nuts one days and smashed out his PU's windows........ I gave a feeling these two are here to put on a show, what with his exaggerated accent and funny facial expressions and her cutesy posing for the camera during his intro - not sure if it will turn out to be legitimate case or put on for TPC - he's asking for $2442.32........ over to D who says P is major loser, say he's maced her and slashed her tires, ripped her sideview mirror off and egged her ride - I guess her defense is dude had it coming, says they both acted bad and it's a wash......... hmmmm, but she doesn't have a countersuit, so if he has evidence she caused damage, there can't be an offset since she has no claim for her damages........ I expect these two to be hard to listen to, so probably lots of zipping will be done - watching MM's face as P talks I have feeling she would appreciate a zip button of her own - either that or she's fighting an upset stomach or maybe just trying not to laugh........ So, he lives at mom's place, and says when Gf got her 'pandemic' money she went and found her a new apartment and bought a new car and 'don't need him no more'....... I have no idea what most of his testimony is supposed to mean, and am already holding remote - so zip zip - no idea what set this go off, but they both claim the other one maced each other and on and on - again, not sure these two are for real or just really bad actors putting on a show....... over to D who adds that she 'tried' to mace him, but missed, then he took it and sprayed her in the eyes - oh yeah, and she pulled off her shirt to try to wipe her eyes, so he leaves her blinded, no shirt or nothing, in her mother's apartment complex parking lot and P gave her house keys to some strange bystander guys and one of these guys gave her his shirt......... ok, heard nuf and zip ahead........ ok, after the big kerfuffle in the parking lot his windows get busted - no police report or witnesses saw who did deed and I can easily believe he might have someone else mad at him....... of course D denies breaking any windows and throws out that he has - surprise - other women that he gets with and that get mad at him.......... now P gives hearsay evidence saying D told him mommy that she didn't bust out the truck windows - but nobody had told her yet that it was his truck and not one of his other 4 VEEhickles....... ok, truly tired of these silly acting fools........ ok, case should be over, but then D confesses to breaking 1 window, but not the rest - says nobody even drives this truck and it was already missing windows - oh, sounds like she's claiming she broke the passenger window during the kerfuffle while he was at the parking lot......... but thought he doesn't drive this truck - NO! not going to rewind to try to figure this out........ ok, she confessed to causing at least some damage, but I really don't want yahoo to get any money - and now he's admitting to damaging her car - surprise, just like D, he admits to doing SOME of the damage, just not everything she claims - says he let the air out of the tire, didn't slash it, and, besides, the cops helped her put on her spare....... ok, even though I didn't hear about D filing a countersuit it sounds like MM is listening to her damages, maybe to declare things a wash so neither gets anything...... zip through nonsense about how many truck windows she really busted (dude not exactly credible, but then that fits with the rest of what he's said)........ oh, and this truck is a 23yo hoopty and he wants more than Kelly bb according to MM........ somewhere in the mess while I was zipping MM heard a $86 estimate for D's broken mirror - she slashes P's claim to $600 and subtracts $86 for the mirror, so awards P $514........ oh my, during hallterview Doug asks D how hard it was to break the windows, and what tool did she use - she laughs, looks away and says she doesn't remember what she used........ after the verdict Seems i missed it, but P admitted to egging her old (07) Sonata

trip canceled because of covid: P wants $1220.55 refund for covid canceled trip....... D says he offered to reschedule, so doesn't owe the money - thing is he got her hotel refunded, but the airlines will only give a credit for a future (within next 2 years) - not his fault, he doesn't have her money, the airline does - he's countersuing for $200 for time/effort he spent organizing the trip.......... D not an official travel agent, but sometimes organizes trips for family and friends and then he goes along free after the sweat equity of planning things, buying tickets, making reservations/payments - P has been on several trips he organized in past....... we'll see what MM says, but I figure nobody here is due any money......... well, after lots of yakking, P prevails - sort of - she doesn't get the plane fare back, but seems as part of the trip D puts together a 'goody bag' which he quessimates costs around $100 - well, since she never got her bag, he has to give her the $100........ P still hot in hallterview

Edited by SRTouch
  • Love 5
Link to comment

I missed the first half of the first case due to a "Special bulletin". I was kind of steamed but when we rejoined the case I was relieved. I gathered this was two people in their mid-thirties throwing tantrums and busting each other's shit up. Time to hit FF.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

not his fault, he doesn't have her money, the airline does

That's pretty much it. I don't know why this case was even here, well, except for him charging her 100$ for the "Goodie bag" he gave her for free. She thinks the stuff in the goodie bag is crap. She gets 100$, plus she has the credit for another trip. As the old saying goes, "You pays your money and you takes your chances."

 

Edited by AngelaHunter
  • Love 4
Link to comment

Well, this will teach me to sit down with my dinner after a hectic day and watch TPC. Yes, Levin - we know how much you adore saying "stinky" like some six-year-old, but this went too far. We know that although you added a "yuck" that you secretly love this revolting crap.

A bunch of adults who, like wild animals, just crap all over under the trailer because pipes are expensive so they didn't want to replace them. Do not attempt to drink every time someone says "feces". Ew!! 🤢 They all seemed to think this mountain of shit and TP was no big deal, well except for def, the minister who prayed over what to do, who refused to crawl under the house and deal with the stinking mountain of crap, but paid his workers 50$ extra to try to bury this nasty problem. Plaintiff, who is of course a SSM (where the hell are all the baby daddies?) is mouthy and loud as she screams over JM and discusses the fact that all these feces weren't a problem for her. Whatever. I FF to the next case. I'm suing TPC for ruining my dinner. Good job, Levin, you stinky asshole.

Then we got what I hoped would be a feces-free case. It was but instead we got P with a dire dental situation who prefers to spend his money to get his 1970 Pontiac restored and gives D's garage a lot of money to do so. Fugazi Def finally, after many meanderings, is forced to admit that he took the money but  in 1 1/2 years he did absolutely nothing to the car. He appears to have no upper teeth at all. P charges over to D's place of business (it seems he changes names and corporations when things get hot) to demand a cheque for 1700-odd dollars, which he gets from Melinda the office manager and on which D stops payment when he finds out about it. This is the best part. Def refers JM to his office manager who can relate what happened that day.

Ms. Melinda appears, telling JM how she felt threatened and intimidated by P because, "I'm just a little girl" and her big boss wasn't there to protect her. I guess she never watched this show. Helpless little girl appears to be at least 35 - 40 and looks and sounds not only rough, tough, and hard-rode, but she grins, revealing a set of blackened choppers that would do any meth addict proud.  She's quite scary for a little girl and as you can imagine, JM mocked the "little girl" more than once, informing her and D that if he has little girls working for him who can't do the job, he might reconsider his hiring practices. Melinda keeps ranting in the background. 1,790$ for plaintiff, even though he got on JM's last nerve with his shouting out, "He's a liar!", etc. He was very lucky to get that, because it seems he couldn't sue the new "corporation" for the money, but the fact that the poor little girl did indeed issue him a cheque under great duress and the payment was stopped means he's entitled to it.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Do not attempt to drink every time someone says "feces".

I am not sure if I am glad that I missed this or sorry that that I didn't see a record breaking dive into terrible rotten (and smelly) litigants.

  • LOL 2
Link to comment

The defendant's witness in the car case was the roughest-looking "little girl" I have ever seen. She must have led a haaaaaard life for an alleged pre-teen.  😉

That being said, I am a big boy but I might have felt a bit intimidated by the burly plaintiff showing up at my workplace; i don't think however that my reaction woud have been to cut him a check without checking with the boss, knowing full well that action might have legal implications. I agree with JM that she did not come across as qualified for her job.

As for the house repair case, I would not have given the plaintiff anything, not only for being an unpleasant loudmouth impervious to rational arguments, but mostly for trying to get a big bonanza from this dispute, a problem which she herself created by firing the guy.

 

  • Love 3
Link to comment
53 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

I am not sure if I am glad that I missed this or sorry that that I didn't see a record breaking dive into terrible rotten (and smelly) litigants.

Trust me. Be glad. I'm not sure what was worse - listening to the tale of the mountainous feces pile or the fact that a bunch of grownups saw nothing unusual about it. Hey, the pipes was broke. *shrug*

42 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

I agree with JM that she did not come across as qualified for her job.

No kidding. I think she and the nefarious, skeevy boss had something going on that had nothing to with her professional qualifications.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

I have a feeling the show may have jumped the shark a few weeks ago when JM asked Douglas to swear in a ventriloquist's dummy!

Agree.  But if you take the word "ventriloquist's" out of your sentence, you know that he has sworn in a LOT of other "dummies."

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

Agree.  But if you take the word "ventriloquist's" out of your sentence, you know that he has sworn in a LOT of other "dummies."

Indeed. He often does so on a daily basis with litigants whose heads are no less wooden.

  • LOL 3
Link to comment

almost a tenant wants refund: P intro has SSM (1) renting  house, but moving out after 1 day because house was infested with mice and a mess - she wants  $2,219.62........ defendant intro has WAAAAY different story - says she complained about no heat, says he made an appointment to get heat repaired, but P announced she was moving out and stopped payment on the rent and deposit check - has counterclaim for $1500.......... P moving to from South Carolina to Massachusetts - says the landlord seemed like ''really nice guy" but house was a mess when she first saw it with previous tenant's crap - and, apparently an abused/neglected dog in a crate...... hmmmmmm so why did she accept D's promise to clean things up and pay anything before seeing what was under the filth - maybe because she was moving in on too short a time frame and needed a place right away?.......... anyway, she put down the deposit and paid rent, and then moved in the next day - right away she tried to do a load of laundry - and washing machine kaput - now she's going through pix of what she found as she was moving in - uh, yeah, a mess, mouse droppings in kitchen cabinets, filthy carpeting that needs replacing etc etc - ok, says MM, but this is all stuff she could/should have seen prior to taking place - well, yes, she says, but these are things she saw a week before move in, and she was promised new carpeting and a s*** and span house when she came back to move in - oh my, and then she took a peek behind the dryer and found the exhaust hose had never been hooked up and trash and lint piled behind dryer........ anyway, after 1 night she was majorly PO'ed and wanted out of lease - she called D and wasn't happy with his response that she should be happy he would refund any of her money - but she didn't like his tone and went to city board of health, raised hell, and got place inspected and it failed inspection resulting in house being declared uninhabitable until it was brought up to code......... ok, if she has anything from city saying place couldn't be rented, yeah she gets her money back - hmmmmm she said she was in a motel waiting for move in, so she may have case for motel stay too if he failed to provide livable house when promised, plus whatever extra she had to pay for uhaul rental......... ok over to D and we're getting into the money - which is kind of funny - like I said, she was pissed and not only demanded immediate refund, but turned around and stopped payment on her checks as payback and to inconvenience landlord - and ran to landlords bank and cashed HIS check for the refund knowing her check had been stopped ......... D wants to talk about not receiving proper notice, I guess to skip over disgusting conditions of house and start presenting his counterclaim, but MM drags him back to answering HER questions......... dummy landlord went ahead and gave her the refund before checking to make sure her check cleared, which allows P to stop payment which means P never paid AND still got a refund - and she did this on purpose, wanting to force landlord to take her to court so she could tell everyone what a dirt bag he is........ ah, but MM tells P she was on her side right in til she cashes his check, because at that point P is crossing the line and committing theft - and yes, cops got involved once dummy revised he refund money never paid  and she ends up returning the money when told she could be charged with a felony........ hmmmmmm so not sure what case is about - P got her money back, but may have case for motel and uhaul - not sure what landlord is suing - he agreed to refund the money because of condition of house, so too late to try to claim she owes rent......... yeah, damage phase seems to be going as expected - P still hot and wants all her expenses paid, but, as MM points out that would mean she lived rent free for a month (rent was $1200, motel was $1500, so I'd give her $300 IF she can prove the claim that city declared place uninhabitable) she also wants money for the uhaul that she had to keep past the move in - MM will have to break out her calculator for rough justice to figure out what P is owed........... ok, time for to deal with D and the board of health report - whoa, MM NOT HAPPY to find some serious problems with the house D gave P to live in (oh, and apparently previous tenant there right up til P's move in and he found some other sucker to rent the next month) - so counterclaim easy, board of health said place had major health and safety issues and could not be rented until reinspection passes house.......... MM really not happy with P because of the refund/stop check to teach landlord a lesson - but agrees P is owed something because she relied on moving into the house and is out money when she couldn't - cuts the damage claim from $2200 to $525........ several things from intro never mentioned in testimony 

boat mechanic wants to be paid for work: p worked on boat a couple times, and D reversed credit card payment - wants $1121.92...... D argues he never authorized the work - seems he keeps the boat at P's marina and claims P charging for repairs he never asked to be done using the card he had on file for the storage fees......... hmmmmmmm from preview sounds like poor business practice where P has no authorization - maybe gave verbal authorization, but maybe not, and looks to be he said he said case........ as proves to happen all the time, intro misleading..... P is not marina owner, but operates as a boat mechanic leasing shop in marina - says he did work on D's boat which was paid by CC - a month later he does more work......... ah ha - seems the service manager at the time didn't file the work order at the time, and has since left the job - oh, and authorization for this order never signed and no cc authorization - P not gaining much traction arguing that this is how he does business, especially as D denies ever authorizing the work or the CC charge and P has no signatures........ ok, sort of confusing testimony where D admits he knew work was needed on boat, but never authorized it and was never billed - months go by, he even lived on boat for awhile, and next year he decides to do some maintenance on boat, and for first time is told, hey, you I've for work done last September - whoa, he says, I never authorized that work, and he argues it was never done because some of what they want to charge him for he did himself - hmmmmm D actually changes his mind and, after seeing before and after pix from P, now admits P did sone of ghe disputed wotk, but insists some of the stuff he was charged for was NOT done........ ah well, seems a combination of poor communication and that missing work order causing this kerfuffle - d admits some work was done, but not sure exactly what, and says he never saw a work order or bill doesn't feel obligated to pay - not just 1 sided, either, as P produces thd missing work order, which has 4 items which were to be done, and admits 1 of those items was NOT done......... uh oh, P is one of those litigants in a big hurry to answer before MM finishes asking her question, and then keeps yakking and MM ends up breaking out the Spanish on him........ anyway, months after the fact, P wants a work order customer says he never saw paid for, but admits everything on work order wasn't done....... oh, and no customer signature authorizing the work or the CC charge - I don't think the business owner have proved his case, but he does deserve to be paid for work D agrees was done........ even worse for P, there's a second work order which has questionable charges and P is sliding on the slippery slope as the guy who should be here, the one who supposedly did work, is not here to testify - oh, and it seems P went to D's boat and took stuff apart to take pix for the case - without permission........ again, D seems to be having second thoughts, thinking maybe P DID DO some of this contested work, and wonders why the first time P is showing him these pix is in court - then D starts wondering when/why P took these pix........ good question, I wondered myself how we know these are pix of THIS boat......... MM not happy with sloppy paperwork or P going on D's boat without permission, but she does award payment for work D now admits was done........... P gets $412.34 of the asked for $1100

Edited by SRTouch
  • Love 3
Link to comment

I immediately FF'd the first case and then do I get the second case? No, I do not.  What do I get? First I get a pink screen and then I get &%#$@ ELLEN. 😡 Of all the things I don't want to watch for even two seconds, I think "Ellen" is pretty close to the top of the list. Why is this happening??

  • LOL 1
Link to comment

Suing ex for big bucks: same old tired story - woman sticks with/and supports loser for 10 years, finally, when they break up she wants back money she threw in crapper to support him while they were together  (asking for 5 grand) - oh, and they have a daughter together, and according to Prince Charming mean baby mommy doesn't let him see his kid.......... first impression during intro - P looks all prim and proper, but D thinks this is all a joke as he smiles and carries on, barely able to contain himself and keep from dancing around - which MM does NOT appreciate this, so even before testimony begins she warns him about his antics....... if I heard right, most of her damage complaint is from a vehicle she paid to insure and traffic violations he racked up - I hate these cases since they all follow the same script - 1 of those never married/playing house cases - if daddy ever drove the family around in vehicle than the insurance was probably shared/family expense - but we'll have to hear about the fines/violations to see if he should pay - even then, was what she paid offset by his paying some other family expenses............ ok, timeline confusing and sort of blows my first impression - they were together off and on for 10 years - daughter now 12 - and what P is suing for is about a hoopty she cosigned for AFTER they were no longer together.......... makes P look even stupider than normal - and D worse - and has me wondering about child support for the soon to be teenager.......... over to Defendant, who immediately denies car was purchased after the breakup - sounds like his claim is that it was a family vehickle, he was a stay at home daddy taking care of her son and  their daughter - but his testimony all over the place........ ok, when they DID finally break up she stopped paying insurance on the car he took from the relationship, but it remained registered in both their names - and he let insurance lapse - ah, but MM points out this isn't simply a short term lapse in coverage as he tries to paint it, dude kept driving 3-4 years without insurance despite P reminders he needed to get car insurance - and the fines P is suing for are coming from DMV for not having insurance - crazy, as it seems he's claiming he got his own insurance and dude just didn't bother to provide proof to DMV to avoid these big annual fines - ah, just flapping gums, when MM asks for proof he ever REALLY got his own insurance surface he can't show anything........ ok, dude looking pretty bad when he tries to shift burden of proof to P - although as P it IS on her to provide proof, but it turns out she submitted proof and MM immediately brings up document from the State that proves they came after her and, I guess, garnished her State income tax refunds to pay fines for no insurance after it was sent to collection......... ok, not what I thought after intro - oh yeah, still silly baby mama throwing money at some bum, co-signing for car for da'bum (maybe while still together) but sounds like these fines were totally on him, but collected from her since she was still on registration - so, if as she claimed she cosigned after the breakup she was a dummy, but leaving her name on registration without making sure he was insuring it was another magnitude of stupid.......... ok, seems every time she registered her car she had to jump through hoops and pay fines because of HIS vehicle - she has texts going back a couple years showing every year when she registered her car she would text him repeatedly asking him to meet her at the DMV so that they could remove her name from the registration (appears it takes both of them in their State)........... what this all comes down to is deadbeat daddy refuses to even sign the paperwork to remove her from the registration, which makes sense to MM then he'd be solely responsible for the annual fines he racks up for no insurance - BUT P didn't do everything she could have to mitigate her damage - every year since 2017 she has gone through this and ended up paying his no-insurance fines - she pays $175 in fines in 2017, $1200 in 2018 and - it's not until 2019, when fines top 3 grand worth of fines that she finally takes off the plates and turns them in to the DMV - MM is really going after P for letting things slide and then notices D enjoying P getting scolded, so MM starts in on deadbeat daddy - hoboy, now D is saying HE was asking her to meet him at DMV so they could get her off registration, which flies like a lead balloon as P has already shown her texts begging him to meet her or at least sign the papers - now MM asks for HIS proof, but like his proof of insurance he doesn't has anything to show........ ok, knew it was cool ing, now Deadbeat is playing the victim claiming evil mommy won't let him see/visit his daughter or her son who he helped raise - ummm what judge recently pointed out the usual reason a parent doesn't go to family court to demand visitation has more to do with not wanting to start paying support than anything else? If he WANTED visitation, he should be fighting for it......... yep, soon as I type that MM asks about child support - sure he claims he pays support (while baby mama shakes her head) but immediately starts in about his hard times, being disabled, etc and goes on to how he sends cash on her birthday (uh, that's a BD gift, not support MM says) dude keeps making excuses as MM turns to mommy who announces deadbeat over $13,000 in arrears - more back and forth about with each blaming each other about why deadbeat doesn't see daddy......... if daddy WANTED to see the daughter he has pretty powerful tool in family court to force mommy - but, it's been what? 4 years with sporadic visits. So daughter was 8 when he left and is about to be a teenager. She may want nothing to do with him - especially if mommy has been dis'ing him for years......... MM does a little counseling, then gets back to case - it sounds like the vast  majority of the fines occurred after P could have ended them - she COULD have forced the issue in 2017 when faced with a $175 fine - instead she let it slide until fines were into thousands of dollars - i might say split the fines after the first year since she didn't do everything she could to mitigate, but want to see him stuck with whole bill cuz I hate deadbeat daddys - sides, he won't be paying out of pocket.......... ok, now MM is looking at the money to determine damages - MM and P are going over the numbers and pretty much ignoring D as he rants in background  (it's funny, as at one point MM calls him a clown and D adds something about being subjected to 'verbal insults'......... turns out MM just calls it awards $2366.13, saying that's all P has proof for today, and that that's generous because - like I said earlier - she should have cleared up the mess after being billed $175 three years ago......... deadbeat baby daddy thinks this is great (oh, D tells us that once she took plates off car in 2019 car was impounded - wonder if, sometime in the future a tow company will be suing for thousands for towing/impound/ storage of this old junker).......... during after the verdict MM says she's going to give P paperwork to get her name off the car - good idea, since we have nothing to prove car was actually impounded and D could STILL be driving it, now not only uninsured but not registered......

bad contractor: one of those cases where intro so different you wonder if the right litigants are in court - P says he hired contractor you do some reno/painting in his condo, but job was disaster, painted started peeling almost immediately, and turned out contractor was not only unlicensed, but doing business under fictitious name - wants $2750....... D blames disastrous job on covid - says because of covid he only had 1 employee assigned to job, and P was a picky customer who found fault with any and everything - says job was almost finished when P abruptly fired him and kicked him off the job - he has a $3500 countersuit.......... ah ha, dirty hands doctrine case, maybe - as we go to first break we hear P was trying to sneak work past the condo association (not a good idea, as some of those boards are REALLY intrusive and demand prior approval of pretty much everything - depending on the association contract, some can make you undo your unsanctioned renovations)....... ok, contractor came highly recommended by the mortgage broker who sold P condo......... intro called into question from get go, so pretty much standard, intro implied D was some kind of condition man, but now P is testifying he came with top recommendations from broken as someone who had been working on broker's projects for 10 years........ still, P talking like he was doing everything by the book, and asked for license and insurance before contractor was to start, but then just accepted D's word without actually seeing license or insurance - when MM questions that decision, instead of answering we hear P say D told him how picky condo association can get........ uh, not sure that answers MM's question, but it does tell us how P was sneaking things by association - oh no, he says, he was up front with board, it was contractor trying to sneak things by board - not sure how that would ever make sense, and as new condo owner not sure I'd want somebody who supposedly wants to hide things from the board - maybe just me, but as someone who once did landscaping and handyman work I think best advertising is word of mouth and sort of figure a GOOD contractor would be inviting board and neighbors to show off their work......... anyway, not thinking much of slippery P as he tells us how he, P, took a proposal to the board for approval, got approval, but D never signed the agreement or provided the license and insurance documentation (that I imagine board demanded) - uh, so why did P pay D anything or let him begin work without thd documentation?............ P sort of sounds reasonable, but then everything he says is shot down by MM - apparently, if we believe P, contractor dude NEVER produced any paperwork or signed anything, and, despite paying D three payments totalling almost 5 grand.......... ok, over to defendant and MM quickly establishes contractor is NOT licensed - he says he works as a handyman........ ah, but that doesn't fly because part of job was mold remediation which MM knows requires a license in her home State of Florida.......... D tries to tap dance around the licensing issue, saying the mold mediation was an add on - which of course won't fly......... ok, these two had nothing in writing - case will come down to Judge deciding how much is fair for work done - according to P, the completed job, minus add-on mold mitigation, was to cost around 5 grand, which he has paid - so MM wants to hear what was done and why Contractor was booted off job - again, I'm not hearing P answer the question of what D did - instead he wants to talk about the countersuit and is showing the incomplete mold remediation - but I don't think D has much of a countersuit since job was never completed and D can't legally do that portion of the job (MM points out Florida considers unlicensed mold remediation a misdemeanor and an arrestable offense) - so P needs to move on to rest of job............ ok, seems what got D fired was using wrong paint - mixing types of paint which can not be mixed - and after booting this guy the new painter had a bigger job because of D's goof......... oh, and speaking of the new painter, the new guy DOES put stuff in writing - so new guy bills for stuff D was supposed to do and was paid for (over and above mold) - listening to list, did this guy really paint walls before doing ceiling - guessing maybe since part of job was retexturing ceiling it may have required primer and more than 1 coat, and D tried to skip steps.......... now it's D not answering questions, but I'm over these two - guess MM is too, as she shuts him doen and starts going down list of what dude was supposed to do - oh, and I guess after he got sued D finally put together an invoice/bill asking for almost 10 grand........ rough justice time - but first an aside about D's 3 grand bill for mold remediation with some free legal advice from MM - first time unlicensed person does this it's a misdemeanor in Florida - then it's a felony - so don't do it again......... ok, nobody will be happy with decision - MM decides to call this a wash - P has paid about 5 grand, but knew that was low balling job - D didn't do very good job, but he did work that MM figures is worth what he was paid......... neither side walks out with any money

Edited by SRTouch
  • Love 4
Link to comment

I don't know who I wanted to slap more, the plaintiff, or the deadbeat defendant in the car case today.     I wouldn't have paid the plaintiff a penny over the initial $175, because she didn't do anything to fix the situation, but let the fines mount each year.    I'm guessing that they were together longer than either one admits.   I'm hoping the car was impounded, and has been auctioned off, or junked long ago.   Did they say what state they're from?    I think someone should notify the MVA or whatever they call the registration people there, that the car was unregistered, and uninsured, so it could be found, and impounded.  

The driver's license qualification rules really vary from state to state.   Some the question part of the test is a few questions, other states, it's a very long written test.    The road test is a joke in a lot of states, and in others you actually have to be able to drive, signal, etc.   

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

Suing ex for big bucks: same old tired story

A another woman who is an utter embarassment, throwing money at someone JM calls a "cartoon character" and a "clown" who had only a learner's permit at his age, and needed the dumb P to co-sign for a 2006 Chevolet Impala for him.  Plaintiff, who seems to be lacking some gray matter, just can't do enough for this clown and sperm donor who doesn't support the kid she decided to make with him. And they breed... Anyway, of course the insurance on this hoopty "lapsed" or P didn't get around to paying it or something so of course the clown racks up thousands of dollars in fines. I can't believe he was able to get a license. I guess the standards have been relaxed substantially to conform to some New Agenda.  P seems to be willing to give and pay anything for him, but I guess enough was enough, even for someone who is a stupid doormat. JM wants to know WHY this woman was willing to spend all this money and incur all this debt for years for her absentee, ex-boyfriend cartoon character. "I wish I could answer that", she says. I wish the same thing because I really wanted to know what the big draw was. Hey, he sends his kid birthday presents. Doesn't that count as support? I'm really sorry JM gave her anything especially after P continued to drone nonsense on and on over JM.

Judge John is appalled by this whole debacle of the Dumbbell and the Clown.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

bad contractor:

That was much more palatable especially because, as usual, people for whom English is a second language spoke it much better than 90% of litigants who are native English-speakers. Shameful, but better than usual. So many people are more than happy to hire unlicensed workers and pay them under the table if the price is right but then scream indignantly about the lack of license when things go wrong. Defendant handyman smirks through most of the case, but pretended to take it seriously when JM informed him his work at mold remediation when not licensed to do so could earn him a jail sentence. Naturally there is no written contract for a job costing in the thousands of dollars since unlicensed handymen are not eager to put their prices in writing, so JM decides what the work was worth and how much is owed back to P, which is zero.

Well, at least I didn't have to look at Ellen. That's a plus, I guess.

 

  • Love 5
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I'm wondering whether she filmed her part of the case with her bed in the background,  just to remind him of what he's missing. 

I'm sure he's missing nothing. This show has taught me that there is no male person, no matter what a gigantic loser and asshole he is, who can't find multiple women to declare undying love and support him forever.

  • LOL 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment

3 cases today

  1. 30+ year old car case: p bought 32 (?) yo Pontiac from junk yard and paid a couple hundred to get a car transport dude to deliver it - says a couple times she's a car gal, she has 6 cars and this is her second of this vintage/year/model - she insists it was car broker who listed it as operable, but MM doesn't buy it and P can't prove her story - so, car transport goes to pick up hoopty athe the junk yard expecting a car that can be driven up onto his trailer and hoopty doesn'the even have a battery - guy at the lot bring out a battery and hooks it up, and car runs long enough to get loaded,  then lot dude disconnects his battery - when car gets to delivery point, P is there with a new battery, but neither of these two have a wrench or pair of pliers to hook up it up, transport guy tries to finger tighten it, but hoopty won't start - so, they decide to roll it off the trailer - P behind the wheel to steer - oops, guess when they loaded hoopty they applied the parking brake and it's sticking - P Fiddling with brake and not steering, and car ends up with front end off the rails and big damages to gas tank and undercarriage - P here wanting transport guy to pay more than she paid, saying it's his somehow fault she missed the loading ramp as she backed it off - really don't see anything D did wrong - except I'm surprised he doesn't routinely carry a few tools as he transports cars cross country, heck, I carry a toolbox with basic stuff, even though I'm not mechanically inclined......... also surprised car gal P doesn't carry basic tools, especially when she obviously knew the battery needed to be installed - her explanation that she expected transport guy to have tools doesn't wash, as MM pointed out installing her battery is not part of his job - then, she takes on job of steering car and drives it off the side of the trailer ramp - oh, and as both D and MM state, her contract with transport guy was delivery of a operable car and what he ended up transporting was inoperable - which costs more for simple reason guy had to scramble to get it on off the trailer........ anyway, P gets nothing
  2. busted fridge deal off FB marketplace: 'nother open and shut quick case - P found great deal on used side by side fridge on FB, called and was assured thing worked great and negotiated $300 purchase price plus $50 for delivery - that would be a great deal, 'cept the yahoos seller had deliver it  laid it on its side in the back of a pickup for the 50 mile drive - oops, the previously working fridge no longer gets cold inside - one of delivery yahoos is seller's bf, he collects the money, waits around an hour, then they decide to let it sit a few hours to see if it will start working - buyer smart enough to get bf to write a bill of sale with warranty saying if it doesn't start working buyer will get full $350 refunded - seller decides not her problem, it was delivery yahoos screw up that messed up fridge, and she didn't give the warranty, her bf did. ....... course, that isn'the going to fly, and it doesn'the help any that she promised to have someone come fix it and then ghosted on buyer......... buyer gets refund
  3. mobile home repair bust: oh my, do people really color their hair like that on purpose!?......... P needed her trailer fixed up, hired cheapest guy she could find, then ends up firing him when he takes forever to get anything going done - she wants $840 refunded - D has countersuit for over a grand which he says is balance of payment for job and materials he bought for job......... ok, assuming she's in her trailer, it looks nice enough - her story is the original estimate was 3 grand, but that they negotiated down to $2200 (another contractor hired off internet) - if I ignore her hair, she sounds reasonable - oh, and idea that she hires her contractor for job costing thousands of bucks off the Internet - seems she gave an $800 deposit, and that's what she wants back......... ah, but defendant first impression really hurt by his very poor camera/internet connection - if i tried to watch this video on YouTube or FB I'd give up and move on......... anyway, he's telling us this should have been a $10,000 job, but he felt sorry for her - well, he does show pictures of a real mess and a trailer which needed a lot of work - so, guess he's saying he was willing to take minimum profit, which could explain her complaint that he was only working her job sporadically while getting worked other, better paying, jobs......... so, he and his guys did do some wotk, but she says it was subpar, so much so that a window his guy installed had to be taken out and reinstalled correctly by her second contractor - she has pic of bad installation and it does look pretty bad - then once his guys get in middle of demo D starts saying he'll need more money to do job...... I could go either way with that - it sort of stinks to be upping the price midway through job, but then you often find stuff during demo that could potentially mean more work/expense........... ok, D admits he upped price, and both agree this reno was being done on a tight budget - so, P was losing confidence in D keeping to budget, didn't like some of his workmanship, and had a problem with him not devoting more time on her job (or at least communicating with her on scheduling) - anyway, cutting to chase, D couldn'the do job for estimated price, she got volunteer help from a church for some of the work, so she fired D.......... her problem is that D DID DO work and it will be up to judge to decide if she is owed any refund or maybe owes something - sort of sounds like she was within her rights to can D when he started upping the price (even if he had a good reason, that was not what the deal was)......... uh huh, according to contractor he was willing to call it quits when she found the volunteer help, but then 3 months later he gets sued for the deposit money - but wait, MM says that's not how it went down and she starts going through texts - actually, texts has P sounding very reasonable, acknowledging that D is owed something for the work he did - but she says she doesn't think he did enough to keep the while $800 and asks him to negotiate a fair amount - they actually go back and forth for a time with both seeming willing to negotiate, but then negotiations break down......... course, now that she had to due she doesn't want to give him anything for what he did......... thing is, P seems greedy, and D apparently did go out of his way to work with her - I wonder how much of these materials D says were purchased he can prove - apparently negotiates broke down with D agreeing to return a couple hundred, P wanting $600 and for D to make a long drive to deliver the money......... That's sort of how MM sees it, too, and she decides D did enough to keep the deposit......... case dismissed 
  • Love 7
Link to comment
2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

a window his guy installed had to be taken out and reinstalled correctly by her second contractor - she has pic of bad installation and it does look pretty bad

I didn't get a good look at the installation but what the plaintiff complained about was that the window stuck out an inch into the room. To me it looked like it did stick out but there was no drywall on the framing which would cover 1/2 inch, and an interior window frame on top of the drywall would add another 1/2 inch so I didn't see anything wrong with the installation, but I may have missed some of the details. The plaintiff did not impress me, I think she came across as someone who argues and whines to get the price down, then plays on peoples' sympathy to get work as cheaply as possible. It apparently worked when the church agreed to do a bunch of work for her for free. As always, YMMV.

  • Useful 1
  • Love 4
Link to comment
1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

The plaintiff did not impress me, I think she came across as someone who argues and whines to get the price down, then plays on peoples' sympathy to get work as cheaply as possible. It apparently worked when the church agreed to do a bunch of work for her for free. As always, YMMV.

I knew someone like this.   She parlayed her late father's military service into getting several of the charities that help penniless veterans by doing home fix ups to do massive work on her house (inherited from her father).    It was her house, he was long gone, and she cried poverty.   However, she worked off the books for many years, never paid into social security or Medicare, so no pension, and her Medicare is her only health insurance, so she pays huge premiums that those who paid in for 10 years don't.     She's shameless about asking for veterans discounts, and she was never in the service.   

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Love 4
Link to comment
3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

30+ year old car case: 

That woman was so annoying. She wants to be a "car girl" (which brought to mind a Sophia line from The Golden Girls: "GIrl?? I don't see Molly Ringwald sitting there!") but wants total strangers to do everything for helpless little her. Why didn't she bring her tools with her, what with her being such a car girl? Why did she sit there and expect the guy who is paid to move cars to be her mechanic? She also lied to him that the heap was operable so it wouldn't cost extra to move it. SHE sat in the car. SHE put on the parking brake which didn't work and SHE wrecked the thing. There was no reasoning with her and she determined she was right til the very end.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

busted fridge deal off FB marketplace: 

CL and FB marketplace? No thanks. Hillbilly woman with the wrecked grill sells her fridge to P. D's boyfriend delivers it and doesn't even have enough sense to know you don't lie a fridge down on its side. It doesn't work, of course, and P had the presence of mind to make boyfriend sign a note guaranteeing if it never works he gets his 350$. That doesn't happen. Oh, well - D will send a friend to fix it. That doesn't happen either. She works all the time and has no time for such trivialities plus the worker she was going to send doesn't have time for such nonsense for 50$. Either. D then ignores P. Naturally P gets his money. I'm just sorry D got to keep the 350$.

 

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

mobile home repair bust:

Yes, I'm sure we all sympathized with this woman losing a foot. The contractor did too and offered to fix up that destroyed trailer for a fraction of what it should cost. She was so grateful until she found out she could get it all done for free from a church and fired him. She struggls to find a reason to not pay him. The window sticking out? Of course it did. There was no drywall or framing in place. She starts harassing him to give her nearly all her money back ("That's a little greedy", JM opines) and wanted him to keep only 200$ for all the demo and replacing the window and whatever else he did. Not very Christian of her.

On the whole, barring all the repetitions of "tooken", I liked these cases.

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

hen once his guys get in middle of demo D starts saying he'll need more money to do job...... I could go either way with that - it sort of stinks to be upping the price midway through job, but then you often find stuff during demo that could potentially mean more work/expense..

OH, I just bet she's one of these people who starts with one thing, and then continues to upgrade and change while saying, "While you're doing that anyway, would you mind doing this too?" hoping that way she won't have to pay more. It's a very sneaky thing and I'm sure the contractor was right that he raised the prices because she kept wanting more stuff.

Edited by AngelaHunter
  • Love 3
Link to comment

This will probably get a "who cares" from most of the readers here, but I just found out that a case from 11/12 involved the mother and sister of Sal Governale from the Howard Stern show.   The case was with the horrible daughter who took money from her mother for a cruise and hadn't paid it back.  Daughter was bitchy and thought it was a gift, even though mother had cashed in a CD to get this money.   Go back to page 174 and check SR Touch's recap dated Nov. 12.  

I'm a longtime Stern fan and it was funny to hear that he and TPC crossed paths.

 

  • Useful 4
Link to comment
38 minutes ago, patty1h said:

 Go back to page 174 and check SR Touch's recap dated Nov. 12.

Yeah, I remember that case, but nothing about these people being associated with Howard Stern.

BTW, I forgot the final words of hillbilly fridge seller: "I ain't trippin'." I'm not entirely sure what that means, but I assume it's something quite cool.

  • LOL 1
Link to comment
On 12/2/2020 at 2:38 PM, SRTouch said:

mobile home repair bust:

I despised the plaintiff. Too bad about her foot amputation, but it certainly looks as if she is milking that for all the sympathy she can get. It worked with the contractor, who was too much of a softie, and then obviously with her church; she tried playing that card with JM who thankfully did not fall for it. I wonder if her church came to regret their decision to help her when she started adding work and "improvements" to the initial plans.

 

On 12/2/2020 at 2:38 PM, SRTouch said:

30+ year old car case:

Another despicable plaintiff. She expected the defendant to do stuff which was not part of the service they agreed to. Perhaps "car girls" can't get their precious delciate hands dirty. And then she blames him for all the wrong things she did do.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Love 5
Link to comment

3 cases - 1 the new-normal length, then 2 quickies

  1. room rental kerfuffle: both litigants playing up drama with P doing eye roll during intro while D snickers......... P rented room in D apartment for $500/month plus $200 deposit - lived there 2 months and was booted shortly into month 3 after paying rent - wants back $700, the rent she paid for 3rd month plus the deposit.......... D agrees she booted P, but says reason is that P had frequent overnight guests which violated the house rules.......... pretty simple case - both agree P was booted from apartment, landlord/Defendant needs to (1) prove these house rules were agreed upon before she collected rent (2) prove P actually violated the rules - if P repeatedly violated the established rules D had reason to show her the door - and since it was partl way into the month D may be entitled to keep the paid rent - not so sure about the deposit, depends on any possible damage and how much D did to bring in new tenant by next month........... P has some health issues and is on disability, but waits for MM to ask instead of going for sympathy right off - P says she liked ad, but seems they butted heads from day she moved in - first off, room still had stuff in it when she arrived to start moving in, and she's told some of D's stuff will be stored in her room - but, oh well, P accepted it without too big a fuss - though the woman helping her move in, according to her hearsay testimony, thought D was out of line and called D "a snake" - P jumps ahead to overnight guest issue, and says she asked about this before taking room, and was told no problem (camera shows smirking D shaking her head)....... oh my, now P going into how she knows one of these overnighters - don't care, D not her mom and, like I said earlier, unless they have some established house rules not an issue - not saying D doesn't have right to end a month to month tenancy if she's uncomfortable with bozos P brings into her home, but she doesn't have right to boot tenant shortly after collecting the monthly rent........... MM tries to shut down story of Chris - who I gather was a friend's wife's brother's 2nd cousin on the mother's side or some such nonsense - but P goes right back to nonsense that has little to do with case - ok, wading through the drama, P's testimony is that D freaked out when she saw Chris had spent the night and removed P's room's doorknob while the 2 went out to breakfast - big kerfuffle about how she wasn't allowed overnighters etc and she needed to get out NOW! - side track to P telling us how D was short on cash and wanted to borrow money after P got a job....... again, not interested except to wonder if it affected her disability and that's not really part of case...... then P does some kissing up to MM, with 'cash not leaving this hand...' with receipt reference and even comparing hair color....... ok, if I have this right, when disability check came as scheduled on 3rd D took her to ATM so she could withdraw cash to pay rent, then off to grocery store where P used her food stamps to buy food for the house - then a couple days later D gives her the boot - unlike some squatters who don't move until a deputy carries them to the curb, P moves out when told to even though she could legally have demanded to stay until end of her paid up rent......... ok, turns out things got really confrontational, finger waving and maybe even D touching P's nose while finger waving, D threatens calling police, P finally calling cops, drama goes on and on until MM finally steps in and asks the important questions 1) did D talk about 'no overnight guest' policy before this incident, and 2) had P brought other guests in past that D didn't complain about.......- P says yes, she had previous overnight guests (but not 10 different guys like some sort of hussy) and no, D never said anything about previous guests........ over to defendant (yep, there's the finger waving P talked about) D says the no overnighters was talked about prior to move in - she says it's a rule mandated by apartment complex (hard to believe) - ok, sounds like the complex no overnight rule is actually a parking issue where you need to get a visitor permit to park overnight (easier to believe) - but sounds like D, in her rants, may be admitting she does not have permission to sublet - have to wonder, as she rants about P never being on the lease and P's overnighter not having an overnight visitor parking permit, whether D ever registered her 'guest/tenant' so P could legally park there overnight - then we get that often heard, always irritating, assertion that litigant was 'doing a favor' by allowing someone to do something for which they collected payment........ uh, I wouldn't consider it a favor if told I could live in a room in exchange for $500 - but then, after listening to these two I wouldn't want to deal with either as a flatmate......... more drama which I end up zipping through after the commercial, but what it comes down to is I'm not sure D could legally sublet the room, even if she was she needed to have written/signed house rules before booting her tenant, so P gets $500 rent and unless D has proof of damage tenant she gets $200 deposit, so P gets her $700......... 10 minutes later and back to watching and MM is in mid-rant yelling at D about stealing P's money - not sure what all was said while I was zipping, but looks like P might has squeezed out some tears, but I'm like Judge DiM and not impressed by litigants crying......... D not impressed by MM rant that she stole the money, and as ruling is announced, she's still smirking and arguing she owes nada and after MM leaves bench we DON'T get to hear what she has to say as stuff is beeped........ 
  2. buggy brother: P let adult brother move in when he needed a place, and ended up having to hire an exterminator to get rid of bed bugs - wants a grand (bug guy fees plus pain and suffering)......... brother says not his bugs - sister lives in a 4 apartment building and bugs might have come from another apartment.......... I didn't watch this one as I left room and came back when it was ending - as expected with no way to prove bro brought bugs in so case dismissed........
  3. oh, and it was a short case, as we have a third case today which will also have to be quick as we only have 15 minutes missing apple tv: p says she paid $130 for an apple tv advertised on FB, but never received it in the mail.......... D says she mailed it to the address P provided and as far as she knows it arrived......... seems simple enough, D will need to prove she shipped it to correct address - they're talking about being sent through mail, so did she pay the extra to have delivery confirmed, and did she insure the package - since we're talking FB transaction, there should be texts/messenges showing the agreement........ ok, like I said, simple case, but MM is looking for things to drag it out and fill time - so we hear about autocorrect switching 'MA' to 'AM' in the address when P messenged her address in Messenger - then why D wanted to sell the thing (selling stuff off after husband was murdered so she could take care of her 2 kids) - even with this short case I still zipped through this.......... ok, when I start listening D is trying to use the AM - MA error as the excuse why thing might be lost in mail - first she didn't catch error before mailing  then when MM points out that she questioned it in Messenger she sidesteps that by saying that was a 'friend' who questioned it and learned address was in Massachusetts, but the friend never passed along that he corrected address - besides, as MM says, 'AM' or 'MA' wouldn't matter if she included zip code........ ok, now we're hearing about how she mailed it, was too busy to supply a tracking number when first asked for by P, and it was so long ago she no longer has it - oh my, really playing up the victim angle as she now says she couldn't do anything because, after mailing package she ended up in hospital......... not buying it, she's either a scammer or a scatter brain - either way (and even if she was overwhelmed by loss of husband and hospitalized) she owes the money.......... MM coming to same decision, but also reads/shows us texts which show D knew it was Massachusetts all along (which blows that excuse) - MM says D's defense is silly, after verdict we hear D says 'sweet' and then to Doug she blames Corona and 'it is what it is'. ............ after the verdict has Hubby really shooting down D's claim that it was 'lost in the mail' as he concludes D never mailed it - oh, and turns out the bid for sympathy over husband loses some steam when I hear she's still selling this item 2 years after she was widowed 

Something else from this case - I wasn't aware of was that you lose some of your protection with PayPal when you pay for these FB Marketplace transactions using the 'friends and family' option rather than regular business transaction. Heck, I haven't used PayPal in years and years, but if I do I guess I need to pay attention to what I click on.

Edited by SRTouch
  • Love 5
Link to comment
2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

room rental kerfuffle: 

That was fun. Motormouthed plaintiff thinks this is some forum for her life story and starts telling JM the only man she was balling in the apartment is the ex-boyfriend's ex-wife's sister-in-law's ex-boyfriend's ex-g/f's fiance, or something like that which so convoluted my head started spinning. JM was trying to be kind, but tells her to get on with it. These two look like the main characters from some way, way Off-Broadway production of "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane". SRTouch explains it all so very well, but I just must note that when Def, with her troweled-on makeup ( the ton of blue eyeshadow was a nice touch for her big TeeVee appearance) is ranting, "She never signed a lease! She wasn't even supposed to... " Oops. Yeah, we know she wasn't even supposed to be there since you aren't allowed turning your apartment into a flop house. Drink every time Def says, "Every Tom, Dick, and Harry." I did, and the results were quite pleasant.

In the hall, def hag informs Doug that JM "has no say-so here in Texas." Okay, then. I ask again - have we seen many goofball roommate situations that didn't end with the police being called?

Judge John is really getting into this gig. He says he has an organ donation card, but on the back it says, "Just make damned sure I'm dead."  But first he shows JM a picture of herself that he says reminds him of the kooky P in this case. I'm guessing he heard about that later. 😆

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

buggy brother:

So brother Lloyd gets booted from the nursing home. His sister starts to say something about things he was doing, but changes it to "racially motivated". No one else in his whole family would take him in. They must be racist too. During P's testimony, Lloyd casually fires up a ciggie and JM has to ask him to put it out. Anyway, there's a whole bunch of bedbugs - 150? -  which P mistook for skeeters and she buys an anti-mosquito outfit. She still gets bites. She throws the smirking Lloyd out too. Surely she can't be racist as well? Maybe Lloyd isn't a put-upon paragon of virtue after all and the nursing home had good reason to give him the heave-ho?

Last case - oh, boy. I'm starting to think FB Marketplace is eclipsing CL as a primo place to get scammed. Hard-rode Def ripped off Plaintiff for a piddly 130$ by not sending her some Apple thing P paid for. Def casually mentions her husband was murdered. *shrug* Yeah, some people including family members were in some sort of "deal" and bullets flew. I'm sure the man was a saint. Whatever. JM is sympathetic and even more so when she hears def was in hospital for some uterus problem while preggo with some other loser but that doesn't excuse this petty scamming. Def has no proof of anything, but of course, JM should just take her word that she did have the tracking number, once upon a time.

Edited by AngelaHunter
  • Love 6
Link to comment
17 hours ago, SRTouch said:

room rental kerfuffle: 

Being on TPC was on plaintiff's bucket list, she kept gushing about the judge and she even coiffed her hair in a manner similar to JM. Stalker material?

Especially now that JM ruled in her favour, which means of course that they are BFFs.

  

14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

In the hall, def hag informs Doug that JM "has no say-so here in Texas."

Another idiot who thinks she knows more about the law than an actual lawyer-judge and who has not read the terms of the agreement she signed with the show, in which she agreed that JM does indeed have a "say-so" in the case, the ultimate say-so as a matter of fact.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Love 4
Link to comment

I forgot to comment on something JM said in the roommate kerfuffle: As D was yelling about P having a parade of men through her room - every Tom, Dick, and Harry - JM asks her "Are you jealous"?

I hope she was just being snarky.  JM, you've seen over and over the kind of men your litigants attract, dredge up on FB MeatMarket, etc.,  and find highly desirable to the point of doing serious battle over them.  I've seen them all, and  I double-damn guarantee that "jealous" is the very last thing I am.

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

Judge John is really getting into this gig. He says he has an organ donation card, but on the back it says, "Just make damned sure I'm dead."  But first he shows JM a picture of herself that he says reminds him of the kooky P in this case. I'm guessing he heard about that later. 😆

I am really enjoying the After the Verdict segments and hope they keep them even after we get back to "normal," whatever that is. I record the People's Court and watch it at breakfast so I am a day behind but Judge John's story about getting scabies from a litter of kittens he had rescued from an abandoned building (and then took to the vet to be checked!) was beyond adorable, especially Judge MM's reaction that it had happened when they 1st met (sounds like she might have gone to the vet with him) and that she remembered he rescued the kittens but not that he contracted scabies from them and commented that's how love works! So acute! I remember in the past Judge MM saying that she had dated her hubby for a year before they got engaged and she gave him an ultimatum - put a ring on it or she was moving on and he proposed. I can see why MM made that move - he's a keeper alright. The story he told about losing a wheel from his car on his way to work that he told in an earlier episode was also pretty funny. He seems way more forthcoming that Judge MM. I do wonder if they still have cats? We've seen the dog and if there are cats I think we should get to see them too. (I remember a joke from the old @Midnight show - they contestants had to fill in the sentence "Before the internet cats..." and Ron Funches replied "had privacy."). Anyway, loving the new format. 

  • Love 6
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...