The People's Court - General Discussion

[Zahdii]

17 minutes ago, ElleMo said:

My house is a bit  of a wreck now, but I know it is a mess and wouldn't want anyone showing photos of it on TV. I can;t imagine a house like that and letting people see it!  (My way of making sure my house gets clean is to make sure I invite people over every now and then;  it forces me to tidy up)

I've done that!  My ex used to host a JW couple every Saturday morning.  We'd veg out all week and then Friday night it suddenly became imperative to have all the dishes done and the kitchen clean, and all the clothes washed and put away.  Saturday morning we were all running around vacuuming, dusting, making the kids made their beds because their room could be seen from the couch, etc.  Finally a last dash to Walmart for snacks, coffee for the adults, and juice for our kids.  Finally the JW's would arrive and be seated on the couch.  They would drag their ten year old son along.  He was always wearing a three piece suit and was so polite and sweet, but it was obvious he'd rather be anywhere but there.

My kids would come in and say hello, then grab some snacks and wander off.  I made small talk for a bit then put my headphones on and rocked out to my music while I surfed the web.  And my husband would try to convert the JW's to the religion he didn't even practice anymore while they tried to convert him to theirs.  Their son sat there and probably hated us all. 

But once a week we had a clean house!

[SRTouch]

On 10/28/2016 at 10:52 AM, ElleMo said:

Hell, I think they deserved their pay for just cleaning the stove. It was that gross.

If I understood her correctly, fridge and cooktop both needed repair BEFORE the evacuation. I'm curious about where it is exactly she lives. My understanding is that this leak mainly effected pretty ritzy neighborhoods, talking cheaper houses in the half million dollar range. I know LA area property is expensive, but trying to look under the mess, that looked like an older home in desperate need of renovation... where's Tarek and Christina when you need them (from Flip or Flop).

Edited October 31, 2016 by SRTouch
Spelling

[Jamoche]

4 hours ago, momtoall said:

Thanks AngelHunter.  It was indeed gross.  Were there more "after" pictures?  Curious as to how they could clean that house in "only" nine hours. 

The plaintiff said something about them guessing it would be a 5 day job, which was one reason why they hadn't got to the windows that the defendant was complaining about.

 

11 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

If I understood her correctly, fridge and cooktop both needed repair BEFORE the evacuation. I'm curious about where it is exactly she lives. My understanding is that this leak mainly effected pretty ritzy neighborhoods, talking cheaper houses in the half million dollar range. I know LA area property is expensive, but trying to look under the mess, that looked like an older home in desperate need of renovarious... where's Tarek and Christina when you need them (from Flip or Flop).

If LA is anything like SF, the half-million dollar areas are where you find the older homes in need of renovation. A house that would go for $10K on the house-flipping shows would still be sitting on $200K worth of land out here.

[BubblingKettle]

Robert the plaintiff had the guts to go on The People's Court with a suit about veiled prostitution, but then he clams up when asked for the website name? The cat was already out of the bag, really. The defendant, with her dramatic hair-play and head-cocking, was clearly looking to be discovered by a casting director. And then the plaintiff rattled off the excuses he heard from her after he asked to go steady...so busy with lots of family engagements and then "She helps her mother at the church." Hhahahaa.  Oh, Robert.

[califred]

2 hours ago, ElleMo said:

 

My house is a bit  of a wreck now, but I know it is a mess and wouldn't want anyone showing photos of it on TV. I can;t imagine a house like that and letting people see it!  (My way of making sure my house gets clean is to make sure I invite people over every now and then;  it forces me to tidy up)

We do the same thing, have company every so often!  

[AngelaHunter]

Wonderful day on TPC to end the week.

First case: Man suing a fraudulent prostitute because he didn't get his money's worth. The hooker - homely, ignorant, low-rent woman with a super trashy titty tat, large schnozz and Star Trek eye makeup - claims that men pay her just for the pleasure of her company.  I guess her conversational skills, even though they mostly consist of "like" ( I was, like, and then he was, like, to a dizzying agree) are worth a fair sum. But I guess plaintiff, a  homely, lisping, high-pitched angry little man , thought she was well worth it. He didn't need to do that. From what we've seen here and on JJ, any man - no matter how marginal, hideous or morally bereft - can get any number of desperate women and have THEM pay to keep him around.

Anyway, he lends her 2500$ but insists on a promissory note. Def. signs it because, like, her family is, like, freaking out and she's, like, on the phone and, like, had no idea what she was signing.  Yeah, if I were looking for nice company and a few dates, I'd definitely go to a site called "What's Your Price?" Sadly, you can't see anything on that site without registering. Anyway, did def. have some sort of disability that caused her head to flop to the side, or did she think it made her look appealing? Loved how JM mocked her.

Really, plaintiff would do better to hire a professional hooker next time. He'd get his money's worth and wouldn't need to keep paying in perpetuity.

Quote

"She helps her mother at the church." Hhahahaa.  Oh, Robert.

That actually made me burst out laughing. Robert, you are (as JJ once said to a litigant) a "dope who got duped."

Next case with limo kerfuffle: I thought it would be another ho-hum case of someone trying to get a free ride. That is, until we heard from creepy limo guy def. Another angry, homely little man who seemed to have a serious comprehension problem and couldn't stop talking over JM as he swore he had something from plaintiff's CC company, outlining the 15 charge backs on her record. Except he didn't, but kept insisting he did. I predicted 500$ for plaintiff and that's what she got. Yay me! To be fair, plaintiff first got a horrible ride from him, including stinky car, no media access and near-empty liquor bottles that probably contained someone's spit, but of course what does she do after that? Hires them again!

Last case concerns plaintiff gouging his friend of 20 years. Plaintiff bought a 10K car, which def. had to sign for since plaintiff (at his age) has no credit. Def's son crashes the car and plaintiff wants to upgrade his ride and have def. pay for thousands of dollars so he can do so. Don't think so.

[Guest]

A bit of homespun wisdom from PsychoKlown.

No matter how strong (or weak) the friendship never, ever let someone drive your car unless your arms have fallen off and they're driving you to the emergency room.  Why in the name of all that's holy would anyone leave their car with a long time friend while the car owner is vacationing in Trinidad?   If you value your friendship you don't do anything to rock the boat. 

I like my friends very much but there is no way I'd lend my jeep to them.  Sorry.  Too much can happen - I probably wouldn't sue my friend in the event of an accident but I would harbor bitter resentment for the rest of my days.   I don't want my gastric juices perpetually rumbling so the way I see it - my keys are with me at all times. 

How's that?  No charge for the advice.  But, if I did charge I can guarantee you I'd get more than the fraudulent prostitute.  And not one unnecessary "like" in the whole post.

Edited October 28, 2016 by PsychoKlown

[SRTouch]

1. Dude suing escorts over a loan: OK, nobody called defendant an escort, but that's the best spin I can put on meeting a girl on a website called "WHAT'S YOUR PRICE". According to the litigants, this is a dating site where the customer pays $50-100 for the first date. Everybody is saying it's strictly a date, no sex and no money exchanged after that first date... hmmm, wonder who enforces those rules? Anyway, both sides only admit to using the site a short time. Plaintiff (I swear I thought this was Dave from Gold Rush at first) claims after the first date, for which he says he was charged $50 or 75 (guess he's so used to paying for "companionship" he can't remember what her price was), they dated a a couple months without money bring exchanged. Dude REALLY doesn't like MM's questions - tries to tell her they're irrelevant - to which she says she is the one who decides what's revelant, so he can object to her questions, she'll overrule his objection, and order him to answer. Anyway, after dating awhile she tells him she needs money to pay bills, and she's  planning on borrowing from a loan shark. Of course, he steps in and offers her a loan (at least he was smart enough to have her sign a promissory note). Over to Lexi, a wanna be Julia Roberts from Pretty Woman. As expected, her story is different. MM asks if they ever became intimate. Sure sounded to me like she answered, "No, no, not at f... no it was never like that." Hmmm, wonder what she was going to say? And what does it mean when someone looks away and hesitates while answering. According to her, he was paying her all along, slipping her cash maybe once a week. Now she's saying he wanted her to sleep at his house three nights a week and come over the fourth night. Whoa, did she forget she just said they were never intimate? Oh, I know, she was probably supposed to sleep on the couch. To be honest, that's what she's saying he wanted, not what she agreed to do. She has what has to be one of the sorriest excuses ever for signing the promissory note, saying she thought it was a "promise to be friends" note that she just scribbled her signature on when he handed to her while she was on the phone. Oh, and she signed it twice because the date was wrong at first. Now she channels a little Betty Boop when MM calls her on the silly story, looking up and to the side, rubbing her chin with her finger... geez and the dude bought this act? Nuff of this case, it's going on 20 minutes, MM abruptly order defendant to pay the promissory note. Then the best part of the case, as MM gets all excited talking to defendant's cousin, her witness. As cous tries to talk over the judge, MM says maybe plaintiff is hostile, but defendant is a snake (while twirling her hair with her fingers her her own best Betty Boop impersonation.) In hallterview defendant gives her own impersonation of MM's impersonation of her impersonation of Betty Boop. Once again we have a loosing litigant who is overjoyed that they're on court TV and won't have to pay anything out of their own pocket.
2. Broken down limo: plaintiff wants refund after the limo she hired showed up dirty, smelly, and with a broken stereo and DVD for a trip from LA to Vegas. (Geez, $2,500 for a limo ride from LA to Vegas - well at least that's the round trip fare.) Actually it was two limo rides, first a pickup at the airport with no ice provided with the warm sodas and warm water and not the type booze she arranged for when she hired the folks - oh, and she was picking up an old friend in the music business, rapper producer type dude, so she had made a point of asking get for a stereo that she could play his CD through her phone - like I said, stereo was busted. Guess plaintiff thought they'd get things right for the Vegas trip, so she hired them again after the airport fiasco (well after all they did offer a $300 discount). Different limo for the Vegas trip, this one has a DVD TV - ah, but sucker is busted, along with the stereo. When they get to Vegas they decide to cut the trip a day short, call the office and have a kerfuffle, ending with defendant supposedly hanging up on them after telling them they can walk home. Defendant can't take hearing her testimony any more, and butts in to start his rebuttal. Says he was told by her credit card company she had a history of giving bad Yelp reviews and asking for refunds. MM has a hard time believing her credit card company is sending him that type of info. He passes up a stack of 40 papers. When she tries to ask about the papers, he keeps interrupting. MM says his papers are NOT from her credit card company, and are just copies of Yelp reviews. Hoboy, MM has had it with his EVIDENCE, and has Douglas haul the 40 pages back with instructions to show her a single bit of evidence supporting his claims. Geez, is this just a diversion to get us to forget the case. It doesn't matter how many times she's given bad reviews or reversed charges. Maybe she just has bad luck choosing get to hire... after all she hired this dude and his broke down limo - not once, but twice. 5 minutes of the Judge repeatedly asking for the proof he says was provided by her credit card company of 15 charge backs, eventually defendant is just about yelling back at MM... yeah I totally believed the plaintiff when she says he hung up on her after telling her to walk back from Vegas. Sometimes I think MM gets a little overly dramatic with her histrionics, not this time, this joker just kept up with his interruptions and attempts to talk over her - he just can't shut the hell up. Actually, she was a lot more generous than I would have been, only ordering a return of $500 - ah well, guess she ate the steak, even it it was a little tough and chewy she can't get it free.
3. Wrecked borrowed car: Plaintiff says he loaned his long time friend his car, the friend let his son drive, and the car was wrecked. Says defendant promised to replace the car, but now won't come across with the cash. Problem is plaintiff went out and replaced the car with a more expensive car, and defendant isn't willing to pay the difference. Nope, MM agrees defendant should pay to replace the vehicle, but he only has to pay for an equivalent vehicle (and he's already paid that)... the upgrades and financing charges are on the plaintiff.

Edited October 28, 2016 by SRTouch
Autocorrect correction

[patty1h]

Gosh, these escorts have no finesse - I've seen enough scammers, strippers and catfishers on various shows that even I know how to play someone like Robert.  Once you hook someone, you play it cool for the first days/weeks, then you have an "emergency".  She followed the script perfectly; most guys want to feel like Prince Charming, rescuing the poor female, and the wallet comes out.   Later, after the glow wears off, they start feeling burnt.   Robert was a little smarter, with the promissory note.   

[SRTouch]

52 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Yeah, if I were looking for nice company and a few dates, I'd definitely go to a site called "What's Your Price?" Sadly, you can't see anything on that site without registering.

Ah, just look at those reviews https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/www.whatsyourprice.com 

[SRTouch]

4 minutes ago, patty1h said:

Gosh, these escorts have no finesse - I've seen enough scammers, strippers and catfishers on various shows that even I know how to play someone like Robert.  Once you hook someone, you play it cool for the first days/weeks, then you have an "emergency".  She followed the script perfectly; most guys want to feel like Prince Charming, rescuing the poor female, and the wallet comes out.   Later, after the glow wears off, they start feeling burnt.   Robert was a little smarter, with the promissory note.   

Yeah, Robert should have opted for JJ where it would have been a simple "I loaned her money and have this here signed promissory note." Lots less embarrassment, cause JJ wouldn't waste a lot of time digging into the WHAT'SYOURPRICE back story - oh, she would have still made him look like a fool, just not as bad. Too bad we don't get flashback cases like on Judge Mathis, where they show an old case with an update of how the litigants are today. I wonder how long Robert's buddy's are going to be poking fun at him.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Ah, just look at those reviews 

OH, they're gold:

Quote

"As a matter of facts it is one of the best Sugar Daddy Sites I have ever used after SugarDating69."

I swear, I learn something new every day. Personally, I enjoy JM's digging into all the dirty details of these outlandish cases. Sugar Daddy sites! We need a case where someone felt short-changed by her Sugar Daddy!

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

I take it back, Doug is fun. He is snarky and calls it like it is. MUCH more entertaining than Kurt!

For the first time in years, I don't mute and FF the hallterviews. Doug is so much more insightful, on the ball and interesting, even at his age, than that irritating, neckless HallFool who really needed a good punch in the face from litigants he harassed.

[patty1h]

Hey, here's more on the secret world of escort sites....

Saw a Dr Phil show with a girl who was on a "sugar baby" site, with is another flavor of Sugar Daddy.  This chick got highly insulted to be questioned if she was an escort.  Her philosophy - I am young and hot and if a man wants to pay to take me out and lavish presents, pay my rent, buy me cars, there's no law against it.  And damn if she didn't get suckers who did all this.  Her mother was on the show, saying she supported this practice.  They both swore there was no sex involved.  Um, OK.

[shksabelle]

lexi, honey, you are not as cute and certainly no where near as smart as you think you are.  you obviously took cash for sex.

and do you know the name for women who do that?  not companion, not date, not escort...it's whore.

[AZChristian]

We think someone  needs to start a gofundme to send MM on a vacation.  She's been really testy this last week or so.

[BubblingKettle]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Really, plaintiff would do better to hire a professional hooker next time. He'd get his money's worth and wouldn't need to keep paying in perpetuity.

And, if the defendant is to be believed, the hooker would make some easy money -- Robert just wants someone to lie next to while watching TV.  Hahahaha. Come on, Robert.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

We think someone  needs to start a gofundme to send MM on a vacation.  She's been really testy this last week or so.

 Can you blame her for being testy with the creeps, morons and losers (counting today's skank) she deals with? Quite awhile ago, I mentioned that some people say, 'Oh, these JJ litigants should go to TPC. Judge M is so much nicer." Yeah, right. She may start off nice, but can work up into a screaming ball of indignation that puts JJ to shame. And I say - good for her.  The recipients of her wrath deserve it all.

[hisbunkie]

On 10/24/2016 at 8:14 PM, califred said:

 

i can't imagine telling someone I'm running for milk and then never returning.  

Especially when you are lactose intolerant!

[wallysmommy]

Dr. Wallysmommy will now take out her scalpel and dissect Robert and "Lexie."  

Robert -- 40 plus balding man who would reject woman his own age carrying a few extra pounds in a heartbeat because he's in the throes of middle-age crisis.  Gotta have a hot babe on my arm, even if I have to pay for her, builds my ego and gives me a chance to make good use of my Viagra.  MM was trying to figure out the psyche of the people using this website.  It's easy.  I summed it up in two sentences.  

Lexie -- Dimbulb who thinks she's being cast for Real Hookers of Nassau County.  Mama told her she's really cute from the time she was born and she bought into it.  I see in her past a few cheap dancing schools, modeling lessons, and maybe a Tomato Queen contest where she was third runner up.  Is the cousin her john?  "I did not have sex with that man -- Robert."  She used the teenager definition of sex in answering -- if there's no intercourse, it's not sex.  Hands and mouths don't count.  

Too graphic, I know but they were two worms who deserved each other.

[Broderbits]

If Lexie wants to be a sex worker (and she can be safe about it) that's fine with me. Just don't come on national tv acting like some innocent babe-in-the-woods and telling lies. That's how you want to live your life, own it. And please learn how to do your make-up; she looked like an 8 yr. old who got into mommy's eye shadow.

[BubblingKettle]

I missed the first few minutes of the first case, and I had a hard time grasping the main problem. So, is this the way it went down?

• She had the cashier run her chosen numbers (before the lotto drawing on TV)
• She didn't have enough money while in the store, so she only bought some of the tickets
• She said she was going to run to her bank's ATM to get money to buy the remaining tickets
• The TV drawing happened while she was making the ATM run for more money, and she discovered that tickets that she had been able to purchase before the ATM run were winners
• She came back the next day to try to pay for her lotto tickets that were "on hold," and the owner told her to tip his son, the cashier
• The police report noted that the store owner took those winning tickets and cashed them at two different stores

Is that right? I think I'm confused because tickets (or sodas, donuts, etc.) don't belong to a person until she pays for them. Even if the withheld tickets had winning numbers on them, they still weren't her possession -- she didn't pay for them. I must be missing part of this story. And aside from all of that the store owner was a snake for cashing them himself.

The plaintiff's daily lotto addiction reminded me of a documentary I watched out of boredom on Netflix.  It was all about the lottery systems taking advantage of people of meager means. The documentary placed blame on the lottery programs -- and not enough blame on the people choosing to waste their money every day IMO.

Really, the lottery ticket situation is probably the least of her problems -- that goiter in her neck is asking for a doctor to check her thyroid.

[AngelaHunter]

That was fun. I admit I didn't really understand all the details of the lottery case. Unlike plaintiff who must have a really good income, I can't (and wouldn't) spend over 300$/week on lottery tickets, but the sweating defendant who is also a thief was entertaining with his endless rambling and talking over JM. I loved her reading the entire police report which shows just how much of a thief he really is.

I LOVE Doug. In the hall he asked the plaintiff exactly what I wanted to know, in that the 15K winnings were no big deal to her because she's spent way more than that on tickets (lottery tickets are what I call a tax on stupidity) and still didn't didn't break even.

3rd case: Plaintiff, who appears to be an intelligent mature woman, thinks it's a good idea to put her credit and money on the line to get a phone (not desperately needed food, or clothes or lodgings) for some 17 year old kid so he can gab and play games or Snapchat or whatever, on the phone and whose own parents wouldn't do that for him. Predictably, she gets burned.  Kid gets himself a better phone and plaintiff can pound sand for her money. She said she learned her lesson. If that's true, better late than never, I guess.

Aside: I have a friend I've had since I was 5 years old. She asked me to co-sign a 10K loan for her son to go to police school. Both she and her husband assured me that the son was responsible, etc etc.  It killed me to do it, but I said no. I've watched enough JJ and TPC that I would never cosign for anyone! Son never became a cop.

[SRTouch]

1. Lottery payoff ripoff: plaintiff is one of those people who spend WAY to much time and money playing the lottery. She goes into the convenience store and buys more tickets than she has cash to pay for. Since she's such a regular, the owner's 16yo son let's her buy the tickets, and he's going to hold the unpaid tickets while she runs to get the cash. On the way, her phone app let's her know she has some winning tickets. She turns around, goes back without getting money at the ATM. Now things get dicey. Defendant, the store owner, is back. He cashes out one of the tickets so she can pay off the ones the son was holding, but he doesn't have the cash to pay her her winnings, so creates a ledger where she has some store credit. He figures, no real problem, she blows through that much in no time anyway. Ah, the problem is that some more of the tickets sonny was holding were winners. He refuses to pay off the winners son was holding, saying she didn't pay for it until after the drawing. Well, maybe so, but he let he pay after the drawing - even taking $100 tip for sonny, and he has of history of holding tickets for people who don't have the cash. Big brouhaha, eventually cops and lottery board are involved, resulting in lottery pulling his gaming liense and threats to his business and liquor licenses when they find in her favor. He agreed to a settlement police investigator suggested. He was supposed to pay her back her winnings. He had already cashed some of the winning tickets, the lottery voided the other disputed winner, and spent  the money. But he promised to pay her in installments... and of course he failed to make any of the payments. I don't really understand ruling... plaintiff's math seems off, and I think I would need a calculator to figure out her convoluted winnings and losses. Obviously he owed money, but I never unsold exactly how much she won, how much he promised to pay, and how much the lottery board voided. Anyway, she got the what she more than she was asking for, because MM made guy refund the $100 tip she gave the son.
2. dog fight at a dog park - 3 pits against a husky... skipped
3. Cell phone plan case: once again some fool putting someone on their plan ends up in court when the good friend skates on payments. Plaintiff's son's long time good friend son doesn't have good credit, so son talks her into adding him to their plan. Defendant reminds me of a mellow (and dumb) Carrot Top, say he quit making the monthly payments because the bill was more than he thought it should be. Made the payments fine for a couple years, but then, for whatever reason, up and quit after lost phone and upgrades bumped up the bill. Defendant I'd awfully iffy here. Says he doesn't know what he was paying each much, and want he remembers doesn't match the statements. Then we get a tell tale "I am lying" sign when MM asks him about his payments and he comes up with "Not that I recall" with a sh*t eating smirk. Turns out he went off and got his own account elsewhere and left he paying off the two phones he had and the rest of his contract... he's out clean and left her with almost $800 in bills. Here this almost mother ends up in court because he cut off all communications and wouldn't even accept a certified letter she sent. No surprise, plaintiff wins.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Defendant reminds me of a mellow (and dumb) Carrot Top,

Heh. I was thinking Broccoli Head!

[BubblingKettle]

Thank you, SRTouch, for explaining the details of the lottery case.

I wonder if the defendant pulled other lotto scams....I remember seeing a Dateline NBC that busted store cashiers/lotto sellers who were scammers. After drawings were held, customers would come in with their unchecked paper tickets, and they'd ask the cashiers to run them through a scanner that detects winning tickets. The cashiers see the "winner" messages, but the customers don't, so the cashiers tell customers that the tickets are all losers. They offer to throw away the "losing" tickets for the customers. Then, they sneak them into their pockets and cash them in. 

I found it!  Here's a clip. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hYt8MYgsC4

[Zahdii]

4 hours ago, CoolWhipLite said:

The plaintiff's daily lotto addiction reminded me of a documentary I watched out of boredom on Netflix.  It was all about the lottery systems taking advantage of people of meager means. The documentary placed blame on the lottery programs -- and not enough blame on the people choosing to waste their money every day IMO.

I was a teen living in Washington State when WA first started having a lottery.  Right away, our local paper ran an article featuring a young man complaining that he spent all of his and his wife's welfare check on the lottery and didn't win anything.  There was a picture with the guy looking sad and all his lotto tickets spread out on a table in front of him.  He actually said that he felt that the lottery was a tax.  I've only bought a handful of lotto tickets in my life.  I guess I should look for the IRS to come calling for an explanation on why I've been skipping out on this lotto tax all these years?

[Jamoche]

Given the number of hair extension cases lately, here's something interesting about where they all come from : http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37781147

I'm pretty sure the sellers in the court cases claimed that "Brazilian" etc were just styles and not meant to imply they came from Brazil. The article says they all come from China but doesn't say anything about people knowing those are styles instead of origins.

[SRTouch]

1. jewish roommates can't get along: A couple of good Jewish men meet in the Synagogue, get to talking, and the Elder invites the younger man to live with him in his large empty house. Initially the deal was rent free, but it evolved into no rent, but pay the Verizon bill. Things go fine for awhile, but then Elder marries a woman in the community. New wife does not like or trust Younger... I guessing partly because he is not as traditional, reason he needed a room when they met at the Synagogue was he was divorcing his wife. Things really blow up when Younger has an overnight lady guest, and she gets the Elder to kick him out. Silliness and pettiness ensue and plaintiff is now in court suing for missing property, rent, and the cost of the keys which were never returned. Ok, no proof that the missing property is actually missing. The keys, well I think that was the fault of the mistrusting new wife getting Elder to change the locks before Younger got everything out. Really, the only thing left is the rent. Elder disputes the amount Younger paid. MM goes over the charges and finds that Younger does owe... a whopping hundred sixty odd bucks. This case was the basic roommate feud, but it was enjoyable to hear two litigants who could speak properly, even Elder's accent was far better than the all too often mangled English we hear.
2. Used car deal gone wrong: plaintiff wants back the money she paid towards a car. I really wanted her to win, because I didn't like the wishy washy defendant and his slipshod business practices. Defendant didn't know what his employees promissed the girl, wasn't even sure how much she paid towards the car - and of course the employee wasn't in court. Heck, employee is even leaving the premises to conduct business in a parking lot meeting where plaintiff says she expected a contract, and was told it wasn't ready. Actualy, sounds like there was never anything in writing or any receipts for the layaway payments.  Soooo, MM calls up the employee, but she's not much help as she can't remember key points. This was another case where a litigant sinks their own case by presenting evidence that helps the other side. This time plaintiff had an appointment to come in an finish the transaction, missed the appointment, then waited almost a whole month before communicating with the dealership, and she presents the texts and emails to prove it. During that time the dealer sold the car she had picked out. She wants her money back, he says she breached the layaway agreement, so he'll apply the money to a different car, but no cash refund. MM agrees plaintiff doesn't get any cash.
3. Convoluted loan to cousin's wife's sister (?) case: plaintiff says he loaned $1500 to this almost-relative years ago, she was supposed to repay it in a couple weeks, and he's still waiting. This is even more blatant example of litigant shooting themselves in the foot. Plaintiff (who we learn in hallterview is a retired cop) doesn't need to say anything. Defendant denies ever borrowing any money, saying she never knew the plaintiff well enough to ask to borrow money. She spins a tail about plaintiff being a crazy dude who threatened to send someone to murder her family,  including the then 4yo granddaughter. Ah, she should have just left out the "crazy" talk. Instead, she brings it up and says she went and applied for a restraining order, and presents the application. Uh oh, MM really doesn't care about the alleged threats, but she reads the application. Another of those "Are you lieing to me now, or were you lieing on this swore statement?" moments. After just testifying she NEVER borrowed any money, the application contradicts her. Then a silly exchange where she tries to argue away the discrepancy. MM gets fed up, stands up and orders defendant to pay as she leaves the bench.

[califred]

Omg car dealer is a wanker.  The plaintiff needs to grow up and do what she says as well. 

i wasn't a fan of the plaintiff in the first case either.  

[NYCFree]

I loved the articulate, and quiet, parties in the room mate case.  Both sides also just simply answered questions, sometimes with just one word, and the politely waited for another question.  I cracked up at all the euphemisms the plaintiff was using to get around saying that his new wife is a hell raiser.  He mentioned that both he and his new wife were from the same town in Moldova.  The only time I've heard of Moldova is in a nonfiction book about a guy visiting the happiest and least happy countries.  Moldova is apparently one of the countries in the world where the people are the most miserable.

[ElleMo]

On 10/31/2016 at 4:22 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Aside: I have a friend I've had since I was 5 years old. She asked me to co-sign a 10K loan for her son to go to police school. Both she and her husband assured me that the son was responsible, etc etc.  It killed me to do it, but I said no. I've watched enough JJ and TPC that I would never cosign for anyone! Son never became a cop.

 

 

Good call.  If the son really wanted to be a cop, he would have found a way.  Most large cities have free police training and may even pay their recruits while at the academy.  Smaller towns hire  cops out of state academies and such;  I don't know much about it, but I cannot imagine it would be difficult to get a loan for that and pay it off when you get a job.  If he wasn't qualified for a loan on his own, something was up.

Edited November 2, 2016 by ElleMo

[ElleMo]

On 10/31/2016 at 7:55 PM, CoolWhipLite said:

Thank you, SRTouch, for explaining the details of the lottery case.

I wonder if the defendant pulled other lotto scams....I remember seeing a Dateline NBC that busted store cashiers/lotto sellers who were scammers. After drawings were held, customers would come in with their unchecked paper tickets, and they'd ask the cashiers to run them through a scanner that detects winning tickets. The cashiers see the "winner" messages, but the customers don't, so the cashiers tell customers that the tickets are all losers. They offer to throw away the "losing" tickets for the customers. Then, they sneak them into their pockets and cash them in. 

I found it!  Here's a clip. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hYt8MYgsC4

 

That is shady!  I don't lay the lotto much, but when I do, I always sign the slips before the drawing so if there is ever a question and they have to look through a stack of winning tickets my name will be on it (or coincidentally, a big black mark about the size of my name)

[ElleMo]

On 10/31/2016 at 7:58 PM, Zahdii said:

I was a teen living in Washington State when WA first started having a lottery.  Right away, our local paper ran an article featuring a young man complaining that he spent all of his and his wife's welfare check on the lottery and didn't win anything.  There was a picture with the guy looking sad and all his lotto tickets spread out on a table in front of him.  He actually said that he felt that the lottery was a tax.  I've only bought a handful of lotto tickets in my life.  I guess I should look for the IRS to come calling for an explanation on why I've been skipping out on this lotto tax all these years?

 

He would have been even sadder if he won a big payout.  If you are on any sort of gov't assistance, they take that out of your winnings.   In NY, they can take up to 50%.  (not sure if they do this in Washington, but I think most states do this to some extent)

[califred]

Moving to Hawaii has been interesting, there is absolutely no gambling here including no bingo.  

 

The woman spending $300 a week on lotto should be putting that money in a bank account she'd be up by at least a few dollars by now.

[BubblingKettle]

The red-haired defendant/daughter being sued by her parents -- On my court tv wish list, both JMM and Judge Greg Mathis would have been on the bench for this case.  Some of JGM's "You're still using! You've got crackish ways!" was desperately needed. The case was really sad, though -- unfortunately, it's such a representation of so many families' realities. And I know about civil rights and all of that, but I wish mandatory birth control shots were imposed on some people in our society, such as those in the throes of drug abuse.

[SRTouch]

1. Family Feud over car loan: Mom and Step Dad sueing daughter over loan for car they bought for her. It appears she is one of those entitled spoiled brats who the parents have always stepped in to help when she makes a mess of her life. Let's see if I can count the ways she's screwed up. The biggy is she's a herion addict, presently 7 months clean. Child Protective Services stepped in and took her kids. Bf at the time was in jail, so Mommy and Stephen Dad have custody. She totaled the first car they gave her (or maybe the second, cause I think they said she's on car #3). The 'rents step in again to help her buy another car, loaning her $1500 to add to the insurance money from totaled car #2. Big blowup with mom when she turns up pregnant with latest bf's child results in her slamming mom on Facebook (post must be really bad, as we don'the get much hint of what she posted). Near as I can figure, Mom thinks she's acting like she did when she was using, so starts to enforce the CPS ruling that she can only have supervised visit with the kids. Actually, if CPS said she was only to have supervised visits I have to wonder what the case worker thinks about the grandparents not following the rules. Anyway, daughter tearfully tells MM that "LIFE IS NOT FAIR." She has her job and has to go in every morning for a piss test and get her methadone, and now Mommy is keeping her from her kids, so she doesn't think she should have to pay the loan. MM suggests counseling all around, and orders her to pay up.
2. Handyman keeps the money after not completing job: homeowner hired handyman to fix sagging ceiling. Big, BIG difference of opinion on how much work the guy actually did, but everyone agrees he was paid $400 to start the job. Homeowner thought he was acting as a contractor, thought he was tearing down the old ceiling and was going to bring in someone to help him replace it. Problem was, dude he had lined up to install the new ceiling flaked, and handyman decided to just keep the money he was given to start the job. Nope, handyman says that was the original plan, but they changed their verbal agreement and then he was just tearing out the old ceiling. Then it was up to homeowner to get the new ceiling put up. Don't know what all was said when they had their kerfuffle, but handyman was not happy and kept referring to plaintiff's as bottom feeders. MM says he has to get paid for the work he did. Ah, but how much did he do? Homeowner says he worked for 20 minutes, and her 20 yo son helped him clean up the debris. Handyman says he worked for two days. MM administers some rough justice, splits the $400 and orders the return of $200.
3. Daddy's fishing shack: way back when, a group of guys went in together and bought a fishing shack. For years everyone paid a little something for maintaining the property and the taxes or whatever. Well, the original group have all died off of old age. Now the son of one of that original group is suing the daughter of another because she has stopped contributing to the upkeep... after all, she says she never uses it and can't remember ever being there. MM digs a little, and turns out the whole thing with the original group of men was very informal, and defendant's dad was never a legal owner. When he died and his will was probated, the property wasn't even listed as an asset. So, even though her dad, later her husband, and eventually the defendant contributed towards the upkeep, they were never legally obligated to. Case was boring, but plaintiff has a meltdown in the hallterview about how unfair the ruling is and how he didn't get justice.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

It appears she is one of those entitled spoiled brats who the parents have always stepped in to help when she makes a mess of her life.

The heroin addict squirts out two kids (because everyone can have as many kids as they want, no matter how unfit they are) with some worthless guy, who is in prison. She dumps her kids on her parents to raise, then thinks it would be a great idea to get knocked up again with some other guy. Yes, have another kid after you get rid of the first two.  This other baby daddy must not be a real success either, since she needs Mom and Dad to buy cars for her. With all her tears, trials and tribulations she found time and money to get a trashy titty tat, nose piercing, plenty of makeup and a horrible burgundy dye job.  She works two jobs, oh boo hoo! Who is supposed to pay for the kids she brought into the world? You need to work 3 jobs and take care of your own responsibilities.

Quote

Handyman keeps the money after not completing job:

The only interesting part is when son (who I thought was a daughter at first) calls someone who is 57 "really old." JM is insulted. The 200$ was fair.

Daddy's fishing shack? Loved plaintiff in the hall declaring "Justice is not fair." Whatever. Do what you want with that disaster.

[SRTouch]

1. salesman who doesn't deliver: plaintiff ordered some advertising from defendant, paid him a couple grand, and is still waiting a year and a half later for delivery. Defendant is one of those litigants who gives the judge stacks of "evidence," then thinks if he talks fast enough and keeps insisting the "evidence is right there" the judge will just accept that without reading the pile of nonsense. Guy just kept insisting plaintiff canceled the order, and the email was "right there," but the only thing he could point to when Douglas hauled the evidence back and forth said nothing of the sort, and in fact plaintiff paid two more installments after the date she supposedly canceled. "OH, but judge she had multiple orders, those payments were for something else." Nope, according to MM, that's not what plaintiff wrote in the memo line of the checks. Case is open and shut, never a question plaintiff should get back the money. The funny part is defendant has a countersuit for 5 grand, saying he'll loose future business when people find out he got sued and lost on TPC. When MM points out how silly that is, he says he just threw that out there, never expecting to win anything.
2. tenant wants back deposit: another really stupid case. Tenant rents a bedroom from defendant, decides to move back in with sister (she was living with sister rent free before renting the room), moves out without any notice, and is in court trying to make up reasons why she is entitled to the deposit. She knows the only way she'll win is if she can show the room was unsafe or not livable, so that's what she's in court trying to prove. She feared for her life because the defendant left the door unlocked a couple times - in the gated condo community with a roving guard during the middle of the day. Then she once found the plaintiff asleep in her chair with a lit cigarette in the ash tray. That scared her so much she went to bed leaving plaintiff there asleep with the lit cigarette still in the ashtray. Again, open and shut... well actually plaintiff does get a little back, but only because defendant was able to re-rent the room before the month was up. Actually, plaintiff may have saved her best argument for Doug in the hallway, when she says defendant wasn't supposed to be subleasing the room.
3. Tow away case: slick plaintiff argues his car should not have been towed. Not your normal car tow case. Plaintiff all dressed up for court and has all kinds of evidence. Instead of the normal burly tow driver, defendant is little guy. Plaintiff admits he parked in a restricted parking spot, but claims he shouldn't have been towed, because the wrong statute is quoted on the sign. Besides he's been illegally parking there for 15 years. He has a copy of the statute in court as proof. Oops, he's right, whoever made the sign stopped one sub paragraph to soon... doesn't matter though, as MM tells us the sign just has to say "NO PARKING." Plaintiff isn't done, though. Seems the city where they were lists the maximum of what can be charged by a tow company, and the tow company overcharged. Now the guy has a point, and even though MM comments these prices are the cheapest she's seen, plaintiff does get some money back.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

salesman who doesn't deliver:

Wet naps! Personally, I've used many but can't remember ever reading anything written on them. Maybe other people do? Gee, that guy was obnoxious - nearly at the level of Levin smarminess and shyster-ism (yeah I know that's not a word). Even so, I really wish the plaintiff had just sued him for the money owed for a contract not fullfilled, period, and not said how he manipulated and so easily fooled a woman who has been a teacher and a real estate agent for many years. I did love him countersuing, since he thought that saying, "Who knows what will happen after this?" entitled him to 5K. He should have just paid the money back and he wouldn't have to worry about millions of people knowing what a slick con artist he is.

Quote

tenant wants back deposit: 

Turns out that the lax security and smoking weren't really the problems for plaintiff. Seems what she really wanted was to not pay rent and wanted to go back to sponging off her sister.  As for the defendant, maybe she should get something smaller than her "huge" townhouse and not have to invite total strangers she hooked up with on Craigslist to come and live with her. I will never get that. For myself,  I'd rather live in a one-bedroom place than have someone I just met living with me, but each to his own.  I also love the fact that no one cares or bothers to find out if the premises are legal to rent until things go south.

Quote

Tow away case: 

Plaintiff is a bailiff and his argument is, "I've always parked illegally so it's my right and no one should object to it." If the tow company hadn't ripped him off, he would have gotten nothing. JM is very impressed at his chutzpah.

[Taeolas]

On 11/2/2016 at 5:25 PM, SRTouch said:

1. Daddy's fishing shack: way back when, a group of guys went in together and bought a fishing shack. For years everyone paid a little something for maintaining the property and the taxes or whatever. Well, the original group have all died off of old age. Now the son of one of that original group is suing the daughter of another because she has stopped contributing to the upkeep... after all, she says she never uses it and can't remember ever being there. MM digs a little, and turns out the whole thing with the original group of men was very informal, and defendant's dad was never a legal owner. When he died and his will was probated, the property wasn't even listed as an asset. So, even though her dad, later her husband, and eventually the defendant contributed towards the upkeep, they were never legally obligated to. Case was boring, but plaintiff has a meltdown in the hallterview about how unfair the ruling is and how he didn't get justice.

 

I perked up about that because the shack is apparently in my neck of the woods. (Or at least in my province.) I think he said it was in Blackville, NB or something like that, which is fishing/hunting territory. I haven't followed it much but I know people complain about the rates the province taxes camps at versus permanant homes, so that might be another factor in what they were doing. 

 

The pics of the place are basically on par with what a seasonal camp would be up here. Blackville is on the Miramichi River, a river world famous for its salmon fishing too.  *checks google maps* I drove through there last summer; a nice little town with a beautiful park on the river. 

[SRTouch]

1. Loan repayment suit: Whoa, guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder, there's someone for everyone, and all those other clichés. Not sure how to describe the plaintiff, but her face belongs at the bottom of the page where you click to see plastic surgery gone bad pix. Defendant is her exe man, big hefty dude, not someone you would think someone would try to buy with gifts. These two are not kids either - turns out he's 60, and she won't tell MM her age. Not sure what to call their relationship, either. He says they dated. She says no, they weren't dating, he was just someone she got together "kicking it." According to her she makes him a series of loans over the course of time they're getting together - of course dude says everything was all gifts. Big blow up when she finds out her new guy is her niece's exe. Things blow over and they make up, and end up seeing each two and a half more years. Over to big dude for his side. Oh wow, these clowns belong on Jerry Springer... I'm about ready to just fast forward through this one. Only reason I stick it out is to watch plaintiff's animated reactions as he talks. Turns out everybody agrees she started out just buying stuff for him, but after awhile she decided any more money would be loans, not gifts. OK, both sides agree she did loan him money for a speeding ticket, and she has texts to show us, but as long as she's suing she's decided to try to collect for all the gifts, too. She admits she knows she won't get that money, she'll be happy to collect the amount he admits was loaned. Once MM gets hold of a phone and starts going through the texts she is kind of amazed at the language and sex talk going on between these two - she says they put teenagers to shame. Finally MM settles on $700 as the amount of the debt, as that's the number both use in the texts when she asks for it and he agrees to repay it, just as soon as he gets it.
2. Bad estate sale deal: convoluted deal is struck up at an estate auction. Naive defendant really REALLY wanted the house, but came to the auction not knowing it was a cash sale. She strikes up a deal with some stranger, today's plaintiff, whereby he buys the house and she'll reimburse him the money, with a little something extra. He claims she told him at the sale she was going to give him the money the next day, she says the deal was 30 days. Anyway, after thinking it over, she says he wants 10k more. She doesn't like it, but agrees. Still according to her, when her lawyer meets with his lawyer the price has jumped an additional $50k. She's had enough, and sues. Well... MM tells her her lawyer should have known she had no chance winning that suit, as all those verbal agreements and emails just don't stand up in real estate law. Now the plaintiff in today's case (previous case's defendant) is suing trying to get back the lawyer's fees from the previous suit. Ah, like I said very convoluted real estate deal. Once plaintiff gets to talk what he says actually makes sense - don't know if it's true because that case has already been settled and MM doesn't dig into his story. He says it wasn't that he was trying to raise the price, it was that he was hit with a lot of back taxes and HOA fees, and it was actually costing him more than just what he paid for the house at the auction. Not only that, but it's costing him money every month because he has to honor the lease with the current tenant, and what he collects each month is less than what it costs him. He can't even buy the tenant out of the lease because the tenant wanted twice what he offered. So, yeah, the price kept going up because the property is a money pit. MM isn't happy with either of these litigants previous lawyers. She feels today's defendant got bad legal advice when her lawyer filed the previous suit. And she tells today's plaintiff the proper place for him to collect the legal fees from that case was when the settlement was reached, and he says his lawyer said to wait and go to small claims after the settlement. Today's case is dismissed, with the judge advising plaintiff to find a new lawyer. No happy litigants. We do learn in hallterview that that tenant's lease has expired and is now on a month to month basis.
3. next up, bad car deal: plaintiff wants judge to undo a car sale, claiming when she tried to register and insure the vehicle it kept coming back as a salvage car. She's not only asking for the return of the $1900 she paid for the car, she wants the money she spent to get her old car back on the road because she didn't have enough money to go out and buy a different car after giving defendant $1900. Defendant denies has a salvage title, but that doesn't matter because he was trying to jump titles when he sold it. Turns out this seller bought the car for $1000, then turned around and tried to sell it for $2200, but plaintiff negotiated and "ONLY" paid $1900. Defendant's problem is he never registered the car in his name, just scribbled over the names on the title he was given. Uh no, you can't just scribble on legal documents and alter them. MM agrees to undo the sale, but plaintiff doesn't get her old wrecked car repaired for free.

[Guest]

Thank you SRTouch.  Could just be me but your recaps are way more interesting than the actual cases.  The older couple "kicking it" was at least more interesting than the other two.  Nice hair on the plaintiff.  I'd swear on a stack of bibles that she uses Dippity-Do.  Her curls looks too crunchy. 

One more thing - I know I'm an old fuddy duddy but I would be absolutely mortified if JM read my sex texts!   First, the plaintiff and defendant had absolutely no qualms in keeping the disgusting messages but there wasn't even a sense of humiliation on their part.  I must confess that I have never sex-text (or whatever the heck it's called), taken photos of my breasts, butt or any other part of my body to send to husband, nor has he taken any pictures of himself to send to me.  I just don't get the thrill of that.   And while I was mortified for them - it still wasn't as bad as the nursing home workers/staircase/married guy extracurricular activity losers on JJ.

I have the afternoon off and this is what I do - watch fools make fools of themselves.  I might as well be at work!!! 

[patty1h]

I think the plaintiff in the sexting case should get her eyes checked, cause after she straps on her blond-tipped wig and does her makeup, she sees a young, sexy businesswoman.  I see Mother Jefferson from the old tv show "The Jeffersons".  

 

Edited November 4, 2016 by patty1h

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Loan repayment suit: Whoa, guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder, there's someone for everyone, and all those other clichés.

I was eating while watching this, and even though JM spared us the contents of the "base, disgusting" "texes" I still felt queasy because I have an imagination that is too good. I thought this kind of thing was for the "texing/sexing" generation but apparently not. They weren't dating, or seeing each other, plaintiff declares all indignant. She'd just go to his place and screw him. Very romantic. With the violent head-shaking she was doing, I was fearful that gnarly wig was going to fly off and hit someone in the audience. Def. should have taken some of the money plaintiff gave him and bought some damned teeth. BTW, plaintiff's initial ass-kissing to JM did her no good, and just looked sleazy.

Quote

  And while I was mortified for them - it still wasn't as bad as the nursing home workers/staircase/married guy extracurricular activity losers on JJ.

Eeek! Just when I'd gotten over my trauma from that case, you pull me right back in. *gag*

Was it Bad Wig day? Real-estate deal plaintiff seemed to be sporting a jet-black, pretty bad one. Def. seemed intelligent, but her actions were less so. She's working on, and cleaning up someone else's house because she fell so madly in love with a hunk of stucco and beams that she'd do anything to get it and acted like a fool with plaintiff? Listening to the kind of advice a lot of litigants here get from lawyers makes me determined never to need one. I'm no lawyer, but even I know real estate deals must be in writing, something neither litigant nor their lawyers seemed to know.

Quote

next up, bad car deal:

Defendant,  a silly little hobbit, was so clueless he thought he could just scratch out all kinds of stuff he didn't like on a car title. I'm glad he took the time and has enough pride to properly mousse his hair into a peak on his head so he'd look au courrant as he gets his well-deserved spanking.

Have to mention again how glad I am that Doug is back in the hall. Thank you Doug, for not being a ridiculous puppet-douchebag.

[Guest]

Okay.  It's official.  I am slow on the uptake.

I thought it was her real hair with gobs of Dippity-Do.

I am not worthy to post here.

[Broderbits]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Have to mention again how glad I am that Doug is back in the hall. Thank you Doug, for not being a ridiculous puppet-douchebag.

Me too! He's so gracious, even with the undeserving morons looking for their 15 minutes. 

[Zahdii]

Who is the guy who introduces that cases?  I have to mute him because he bugs me so much.

[AngelaHunter]

4 minutes ago, Zahdii said:

Who is the guy who introduces that cases?  I have to mute him because he bugs me so much.

That's still Kurt, the former Hall-Clown, reading what I'm sure are scripts given him by Levin. They must be, because no one else on this show is old enough to use the terms, "Geeze Louise" or "the louse," or the tasteless, Vaudevillian-era  "________ 'er? He hardly KNEW 'ER!" Gotta be Levin.

I haven't heard any of that for ages. I mute and F/F.

[Brattinella]

Harvey Levin needs to get boiled in oil.