The People's Court - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

pitiful case of Motown celebrity impersonators coming on TV for some publicity.

How long do you think she spent rehearsing her opening speech? 3$ goes to 5K because of FB sniping. I get it with the def. - he's a kid who knows no other way to communicate, but plaintiff is a middleaged woman who should know better. I like how much support she gets from her piker audience. 3 - 7$ in tips.  Must be some show.

Quote

lame intro says case is about a bad rim job gives credence to these introductions being written by street joker

I didn't hear it (this show is making me wear out my Mute and FF buttons) but no doubt Levin thought that was clever and cute.

Rims! "They spinnin' and they spinnin'!" Hey, whatever does it for you. Don't blame plaintiff for being pissed off. Kinda boring case.

Quote

2 supposedly adult mature women join forces to get a couple of unrideable horses

These women sounded utterly ridiculous. "Okay, let's get horses. Horsies are fun!  I'll come and take care of them in perpetuity - either until they or I die. Or something like that. Who knows? Neither of us has the capacity to plan beyond next week!" Plaintiff loves horses! I do too, but not to the extent I'd get one tattooed on my chest. I worry about someone like her caring for an infant.

[califred]

Oh I missed the horse neck tattoo, I'll have to go back and look if I didn't delete the episode.

 

The plaintiff in case one was irritating, I don't want to hear you sing lady.  Or fight over $7.  

 

I sort of glazed over during the rims case.

[SRTouch]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

These women sounded utterly ridiculous. "Okay, let's get horses. Horsies are fun!  I'll come and take care of them in perpetuity - either until they or I die. Or something like that. Who knows? Neither of us has the capacity to plan beyond next week!" Plaintiff loves horses! I do too, but not to the extent I'd get one tattooed on my chest. I worry about someone like her caring for an infant.

yeah, horses are fun... also lots of work and expensive to keep. 

What's with all the horse cases lately, anyway?

Edited November 19, 2016 by SRTouch
Added sentence

[teebax]

The women sharing or not sharing a horse were stupid. What the hell kind of agreement was that? I'm going to come and do all the work and in exchange I get to..... be around your horse. If they're friends, why couldn't she be around the horse without providing free labor and materials? 

While the Motown case was silly, I loved it because of MM's reactions to the list of musicians they cover. I'm a huge Motown fan, so seeing MM speak so lovingly about my favorite kind of music made melove her just a little more. 

The rim dispute was weird. I do appreciate that TPC gets the most interesting cases of all the court shows I've seen. But I've never understood the rims thing. I'm a car lover, but I still don't get it. And it's usually people who can ill-afford it spending their money on freaking rims. There's a rent to own rim shop a few miles from my house. I shake my head at it every time I drive past. This guy's rims weren't that expensive, but I know some,people,spend thousands on them. Thousands! I must be getting old.

Any errors in my writing are solely attributable to Stella Artois. I'm a little tipsy this evening.

[califred]

If you have to rent to own rims, you don't need them.

 

You inspired me to make a martini 

[BubblingKettle]

The woman in the $3 Motown case was bound and determined to sing "Don't Mess with Bill" as many times as she could.

[AngelaHunter]

13 hours ago, teebax said:

While the Motown case was silly, I loved it because of MM's reactions to the list of musicians they cover. I'm a huge Motown fan, so seeing MM speak so lovingly about my favorite kind of music made melove her just a little more. 

What I also love is that she can do that, and then turn around and slice litigants into little pieces immediately following that. Litigants get all relaxed and chummy and then Wham! out comes the knife.

13 hours ago, teebax said:

Any errors in my writing are solely attributable to Stella Artois. I'm a little tipsy this evening.

Sometimes it's the best way to watch the show.

[SRTouch]

three duds that should have never made TV 

1. Bad dentures: knew from the intro this total waste of time. Elderly lady suing her dentist because her dentures don't fit, but she's already signed a settlement and received her settlement check. I suppose the case scouts thought she might be an entertaining story teller - uh no, and defendant kind of ho hum, too. MM stretched it as much as she could, but I would imagine defendant's answer to the complaint mentioned the settlement.
2. Taxi fare kerfuffle: another silly he said/he (and she) said case where I'm not believing anybody. Taxi picks up dude and his teenage daughter (only good part of the case is they find a model taxi for MM to play with opening and shutting the doors). Defendant says he takes that ride often, and fare is never over $30. When they get to the destination, they start arguing about the fare. Driver says $34, defendant says it's never that much, and he doesn't have $34. Guy gives driver what he feels fare should be, gets out and starts to walk away. Kerfuffle, argument turns physical, passenger sprayed with mace (or maybe suntan oil), passenger calls cops, driver flees scene. Later on passenger goes to ER and has eyes flushed and driver gets arrested. Today's case is driver suing for lawyer fees and missed work... seems there were several court dates and continuances before case was eventually dropped. Everybody has holes in their stories, and everyone acted stupid when the incident took place, and of course no one brought the police report or any sort evidence. Well, defendant brought the daughter as a witness, but I didn't find her all that credible. Her story seemed rehearsed to match Dad's,  even same wording. But she forgot the part of Dad's story where he slipped and driver grabbed his shirt to really get whatever in his eyes... hmmm, I think that should have really stuck in her mind. MM gives Dad a hard time about making a big scene over $4 (and not having tip money), and Dad eventually admits it was stupid to fight over 4 bucks in front of his daughter - then does an about face when Doug asks him and says he'd do it again. Driver really had no case - especially not a $5000 case. Even going with his story, ignore everything defendant and daughter said, he chased the passenger to spray him as he was walking away, so he'd lose there. The kicker, though, is that the prosecutor thought there was enough evidence for a conviction in a criminal case, and civil cases have much less stringent rules. Only reason case was dropped was prosecutor decided all the continuances just made the case not worth pursuing. Surprisingly, defendant didn't have a countersuit. Don't know if his trip to the doctor was paid by insurance, but surely he should have tried for pain and suffering.
3. Car deal falls apart: Plaintiff finds a 03 350Z that he really wants, but can't afford. So he gets with a friend of a friend who is a car dealer (the defendant) and can get financing. The mutual friend who is arranging everything is the father of the seller, and he give the defendant dealer $1000 after getting it from plaintiff (I know, convoluted as hell, right.) So, everything is good until plaintiff finds out what it's going to cost to insure - wow, he backs out of the deal. Problem now is he wants back the money he gave the mutual friend, who in turn gave it to defendant. Defendant say no refund on the deposit. Actually, he says mutual friend agreed to pay him $500 for getting the financing (which he did) and defendant had to pay to install the GPS Tracker the finance company demanded because of plaintiff's bad credit. Besides, he says, he's already returned the difference between the charges and the deposit to the mutual friend, so if anybody owes plaintiff money it's mutual friend. MM says nobody owes plaintiff any money, the deposit is non refundable. Plaintiff whines to Doug that he didn't get to tell his side.

Edited November 21, 2016 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[ElleMo]

Thoroughly enjoyed today's episode, especially the stupid cabby and cheapskate passenger from Yonkers.  I believe that the cabby had sunscreen in his car, but I think it was there for protections and not to prevent a farmer's tan.  It was probably a big ass can and in NY you can only carry a very small can of mace.  Sunscreen probably works just as well (or it there was mace inside the can).

If Yonkers dude wasn't such a damn cheapskate this wouldn't have happened.  Tip on $30 would be at least $4.50 so he would have been covered, albeit the driver would have been annoyed at no tip.  Driver could have prevented this too if he had discussed the fare before going.  When in non-metered cab I always discuss price before we drive off.  

I didn't believe any of them, but plaintiff did admit that he started the altercation (by grabbing the bags) and even according to his story spraying the eyes was not self-defense. 

Edited November 21, 2016 by ElleMo

[ElleMo]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

1. Car deal falls apart: Plaintiff finds a 03 350Z that he really wants, but can't afford. So he gets with a friend of a friend who is a car dealer (the defendant) and can get financing. The mutual friend who is arranging everything is the father of the seller, and he give the defendant dealer $1000 after getting it from plaintiff (I know, convoluted as hell, right.) So, everything is good until plaintiff finds out what it's going to cost to insure - wow, he backs out of the deal. Problem now is he wants back the money he gave the mutual friend, who in turn gave it to defendant. Defendant say no refund on the deposit. Actually, he says mutual friend agreed to pay him $500 for getting the financing (which he did) and defendant had to pay to install the GPS Tracker the finance company demanded because of plaintiff's bad credit. Besides, he says, he's already returned the difference between the charges and the deposit to the mutual friend, so if anybody owes plaintiff money it's mutual friend. MM says nobody owes plaintiff any money, the deposit is non refundable. Plaintiff whines to Doug that he didn't get to tell his side.

 

5

I think the plaintiff made it much more convoluted than it needed to be.  Plaintiff wants to buy a car but doesn't have the money so seller sends him to a loan broker for a loan.  He did not understand why he wasn't owed a refund.  He said that the defendant wasn't supposed to get the loan and was only supposed to get the numbers for the papers, whatever that means.  Unless the guy was dealing with a loan shark, plaintiff must have signed something requesting a loan otherwise, he wouldn't have been approved for the loan.  Not the defendant's fault plaintiff didn't understand this was going to cost money whether he used the loan or not.  And if he were owed money, Wyroberto (or whatever his name was) is the person he should have sued.  Defendant never got any money from the plaintiff.

Edited November 21, 2016 by ElleMo

[Jamoche]

The old man who was utterly baffled that he should need to replace a lost check - I'm guessing some kind of senior dementia, because this didn't feel like the usual court defendant with absolutely no life skills, he just seemed sad and confused. But boy howdy was he ever confused - even the very simple fact of she didn't tell him she'd lost the check the day she got and lost it because she didn't know she'd lost it yet went zipping over his head.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Jamoche

[califred]

I was wondering why the cab didn't have a meter. I've never seen a non metered cab, granted I have limited cab ride experience and the majority of it has been in Vegas

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, ElleMo said:

Thoroughly enjoyed today's episode, especially the stupid cabby and cheapskate passenger from Yonkers.

I think what bothered me the most - other grown men assaulting each other over 4$ - was def's daughter who has to refer to this silly douchebag as "my dad." But yeah, if I'm buying services or goods and only happen to have 30$ in my pocket, that's what the person should settle for, because I'm entitled that way.

3 hours ago, ElleMo said:

Plaintiff finds a 03 350Z that he really wants, but can't afford.

Much ado about a thirteen year old Nissan. Hey, it was sporty and sexy and suits my image even if I can't afford it. I really liked the def. in this case.

[AZChristian]

The only time I ever had a cabbie "overcharge" issue was in Paris.  The guy taking us back to the train station wanted to charge THREE TIMES more than the guy who took us from the train to our hotel.  We gave him all the Euros we had (close to the original price we paid), and he shrugged it off with a "Well, I tried to take advantage of the stupid Americans.  Didn't work this time."

A difference of $4 (when the guy admits he doesn't usually tip) is no big deal.  The defendant should have been ashamed.  If he was dropped off at his house, he could have gone in and got that much from his loose change jar.  

But the plaintiff doesn't get off the hook.  If someone shorts you by $4, it makes more sense to shrug it off than to get into a physical altercation.

No winners in this case.  Both were losers.

[teebax]

I can't imagine the hubris it takes to just expect someone to accept the money you have if it isn't enough. I know the cab driver overreacted, but that defendant was a douchebag. I'm not sure if it had a meter or not, but if you only have a fixed amount why not tell that to cabbie up front and let cabbie decide if he wants to take the fare?

Also, as much as I hate that we are a tipping society, we are. To get in a cab with $30 expecting it to be $30 is a dick move. If I go to a full-service restaurant I'm factoring the tip into my meal.

The cab industry wonders why Uber and Lyft are cutting into their business. I like knowing what the price is and having the tip already included. Plus the cars are way nicer than the shitboxes that pass for cabs where I live.

That's my long way of saying I hated both litigants.

[Bazinga]

Quote

I can't imagine the hubris it takes to just expect someone to accept the money you have if it isn't enough. I know the cab driver overreacted, but that defendant was a douchebag. I'm not sure if it had a meter or not, but if you only have a fixed amount why not tell that to cabbie up front and let cabbie decide if he wants to take the fare?

Also, as much as I hate that we are a tipping society, we are. To get in a cab with $30 expecting it to be $30 is a dick move. If I go to a full-service restaurant I'm factoring the tip into my meal.

I believe he had more than $30.  Stating he only had $30 to the driver was his way of ending what he perceived as the driver's overcharging.  He had previously taken cabs between these two points and, according to him, been charged between $28 and $30.  Being charged $34, he thought, was too much, so he throws out to the driver I only have $30, take it or leave it, expecting the driver to take the $30 and he would therefore be charged what he thought appropriate.  Only the driver started tussling over his bags.  Then he resorted to get off my property.  But, he had more money and if not, the daughter would have had something or, as stated above, he could have gone inside and got the rest, if he actually wanted to pay, which he didn't.  The hubris is his assumption he knows the "proper" fare and knew he was being scammed.  

First plaintiff was obnoxious and I didn't think her whole act was cute like Judge Milan.  No, she didn't look good for 76 or 86 or 96.  She accepts money for work she was unsatisfied with while getting to even keep the dentures (she got to eat the steak and not pay for it!), signs a release, plays dumb and expects the dentist to return money paid for other work and to also pay for her new dental work.  Meanwhile, dentist had to be bothered by her bs (you know she was calling, coming back repeatedly) and lose a day's work having to defend himself against her nonsense that he had already paid her back.  It's not about the money...  Then why are you suing for money you already got back?  Disgusting woman and ignorant, probably intentionally ignorant, daughter.  She needed a smack down not to be encouraged.  Long-winded stories about her past with dentists and having to travel at night in the snow...  Ugh.  Just a nasty, awful woman.  Even though she lost, I hated that the Judge indulged her.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Bazinga

[momtoall]

17 hours ago, SRTouch said:

knew from the intro this total waste of time.

This was true of all the cases yesterday.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

First plaintiff was obnoxious and I didn't think her whole act was cute like Judge Milan. 

I didn't find her cute in the least, with her cozy, smarmy, "don't you just love me?" story-telling. So many people seem to think that their age entitles them to special treatment in court. I must say, It IS impressive to be able to drive a dentist so crazy that he gives back all that money just to get her the hell out of his life. What does it mean to sign a release? Well, it means you're released from the building, right?  I don't know how many other words were needed on that document to get the meaning through their heads.

 

12 hours ago, Bazinga said:

She needed a smack down not to be encouraged.  Long-winded stories about her past with dentists and having to travel at night in the snow...  Ugh.  Just a nasty, awful woman. 

Yep.

[BubblingKettle]

Albert the little driver was full of baloney, and his mother was too. There has to be more of a story than, "I wanted to use a charger but someone else was, and I got the car keys, and I moved the car out of the parking spot." Maybe the mother wanted Albert to make a food run while she stayed with her party guests.

I can just see it: the worker in the McDonald's drive-thru hollers to his workmates, "Hey guys! Little Albert's here again! His arms aren't long enough to reach the drive-thru window, so can someone run these bags out to the Park & Wait spot?" Then, it's off to the CVS across the street for a quick purchase of Pokemon cards, a bag of Flamin' Hot Cheetos, and some Sour Patch Kids. Albert sneaks a party McNugget as he turns onto his street and waves to his bike-riding friends who are cheering him on. "Yeah, Albert! Drive it, man!!" He slides into an oversized parking spot and makes his way into the house with all the bags. ""Best decision I made all year," his mother told her friends while chomping on french fries. "Look at all he can do now that he drives. Gets the food, picks the baby up from daycare, drives his damn self for all those Pokemon cards he's always asking for.....I just signed him up to be an Uber driver. I mean, he has all that time off for Christmas. Kids need something to do."

I LOVED when Douglas put the heat on Albert in the hallway.

[SRTouch]

1. 'Nother breakup loan fight: Yet again a single mom meets new bf, loans him money a short time later, they breakup, now she's in court wanting the loan repaid. Plaintiff gets some grief from MM about the wisdom of the loan, but defendant REALLY gets on her bad side. What do women see in this loser? According to plaintiff, the dude was seeing two other women on the side when she thought they were together. He even brought one of the other women to court - which is a little funny because he tries to say she's not there, but plaintiff points her out and new gf waves to us. Geez, talk about a pointless lie that makes no sense and easily proven. "Is she here?" "Yes" "In the courtroom?" "No, I don't know where she is." Plaintiff "Yes she is, she's right over there on the end!" and new girly waves. Had nothing to do with the case, yet dude lies to the court. Anyway, at this point it's pretty obvious it WAS a loan, not a gift as defendant first claimed, so he shifts to plan B - says he already paid back $2000 of the $2100. Plaintiff agrees he paid back $1500, but she suing for the fees/penalties she incurred when she withdrew money early from her retirement fund to pay for repairing his work vehicle. Defendant says he can prove he paid $2000, but all he can show for the missing  $500 is a check stub, that he insists he gave her but admits was never cashed. MM had called defendant up to the bench to show his "proof," and big mouthed dummy actually stands at the bench trying to talk over her and is just a smidgen away from yelling at the judge. Dude continues talking over the judge after being sent back to his lectern, and now tries to sling mud at plaintiff accusing her of drug use, not taking care of her kids, etc. That does it for the judge. Before he lost control I thought he might get away with just paying off the remaining $600 the litigants agree is outstanding on the loan. Nope, big mouth talked himself into paying everything plaintiff asked for, the loan, fees, penalties, the works. After the ruling, while still at the lectern, defendant is yelling MM had decided to rule for the plaintiff as soon as she walked in.
2. Auto crash with twists: What should be a simple apartment complex parking lot accident takes a couple strange turns. Neighbors in the complex with adjacent assigned parking spaces have a little accident. First twist is that the driver turns out to be a ten year son, who mommy says took the keys without her knowledge. Ok, ten year boys sometimes do stupid things like this, and at first mommy says she'll cover the damages. Next twist, I guess in a bid for sympathy, mommy says (and writes in texts) that sonny is 7, not ten. Not sure why that would make a difference, but she says she spank the kid. Next, mommy's car is unregistered and no insurance, but she promises to pay out of pocket... hmmm maybe mommy should be spanked, too. (Oh, and when MM talks to the boy he doesn't mention a spanking, he says his punishment was no video games or TV for a month.) Plaintiff goes and gets a couple estimates (around $1500). Mommy says way to high, take it to her friend. Friend turns out to be a shade tree mechanic (working on a lawnmower when plaintiff goes to the "shop") and verbally guessimates $5or600. Plaintiff isn't comfortable with him, so wants a regular body shop to do the work. Now the meat of the case, mommy won't pay regular shop price, and plaintiff is getting a bad vibe, what with the age discrepancy and all... she decides only reason defendant even stepped up was that the whole bumper car episode was captured on the complex video surveillance. Once MM starts talking with mommy we see pictures of the damage, and I'm on at all surprised by a $1500 estimate. MM explains to mommy that body work IS EXPENSIVE, and the whole time Mommy is trying to interject and explain why she shouldn't have to pay. MM doesn't let mommy make her excuses, goes with the lower estimate, and awards plaintiff $1423. In her ruling we get a little explanation about how the judgement is against both mother and son, and it hang over the kid until the money is paid or for 20 years. Out on the street, Harv says normally a judgement against a 10yo would stay in effect for 10 years, not 20, but if not paid can be extended.
3. Tenant/landlord dispute: Plaintiffs decide not to renew their lease, and get permission to move out a month early to the house they're buying. They get the OK, and agree to be out by May 31. Move most of their stuff mid May, come back to get the last of their stuff and find somebody else has already moved stuff in. (One of the things moved in was a panini press, which I had to google... hmmm, who knew I've been making panini for years with dinner rolls and my George Foreman.) Oh wow, landlord/defendant instantly gets on my bad side when he wants to see pictures before he'll answer the question of who was moving stuff in while plaintiffs were still paying rent. Even after seeing the pictures he starts in with "All I can tell you is what's mine" and then starts in with, yeah, that's my futon, I don't know who this belongs to, I don't recall this... lot of humming and hawing making me doubt pretty much anything else he says. Mainly, what he says is yeah he moved some stuff in, but he doesn't know where the rest came from because he still hasn't rented to new tenants. Ah, but moving stuff in while the tenants are still tenants but in the process of moving is not cool, and these tenants get upset. Turns out landlord, who lives in the downstairs apartment does air BnB... hmmm, could it be that when he saw tenants moving out he offered up his place for rent and moved upstairs. Now tenants are mad, want back half a month's rent, the $3000 deposit, and money they chipped in for utilities and cable/internet. Big kerfuffle, yelling and cursing, cops involved etc. MM questions how plaintiffs came to their $5000 lawsuit, and some of it doesn't jibe. Ah, but landlord really has problems with way he should be able to keep security. Part of it is the last month's rent when they moved out early. Now he's denying he ever agreed to forego that month, but MM has read the case and digs out the message where landlord asks if they can be out a month early as he has a tenant to move in... huh, one of those are you lying now or were you lying then moments. He tries to get slick by quoting a paragraph in the signed lease that says any changes/amendments have to be in writing, and that since the new tenant deal fell through he shouldn't be held to his agreement in the text. Uh, no, the judge gets to decide if his text agreement forgives that last month rent, and she decides to accept the text. Oh, defendant doesn't like that, and starts backtalking - which of course ends badly for him. Again, MM has done her research. It turns out landlord has been renting the upstairs apartment, in his own words for years, but the property isn't zoned to permit it. Oops, another litigant gets a smack down for interrupting and trying to talk over the judge. Originally she was giving back the security but not the half month rent, but defendant talked himself into giving that money back, too. They end up getting $4500 of the 5k they asked for. In the hallterview, defendant still arguing that the texts weren't enough to get them out a month early, the judge wouldn't listen, wah wah.

[AngelaHunter]

37 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

: Yet again a single mom meets new bf, loans him money a short time later, they breakup, now she's in court wanting the loan repaid.

I laughed so hard during this case I think I hurt myself. Plaintiff, who is a single mother of three little girls, was so smitten by the fugly, ignorant, pinheaded, T-rex armed, ill-tempered blimp that she took money out of her retirement fund to give to him. God knows, we've seen a zillion pathetically desperate women, but this one takes the cake, IMO. What's not funny is that she'd rather shower money on that cretin than save it for her daughters. I'm really sorry she got her money back, since I doubt she learned anything except "Stay single" which is not learning anything at all. How about, "Don't be so desperate for any warm body that you'll do anything, give anything, to have one around."? All these women who wanted the def? Oh, god here I go again into gales of laughter.

Quote

What should be a simple apartment complex parking lot accident takes a couple strange turns.

"Yes, I have insurance. NOW." Ho-hum, nothing new here. I loved how def. is an expert at bodywork, even though she'd never had any done. I had a dent almost identical to plaintiff's (someone backed into me) and yep, it was exactly 1400$. That's what it costs. Def sure had a lot of axing going on! And that was some whoppin' big ten-year old.

 

45 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Tenant/landlord dispute: 

That landlord was something else. Did he really think that making sarcastic cracks to JM ("Why don't YOU tell the story?") was going to help his case? He's like the "I have insurance. Now." idiots in that he says he's "working on" getting his digs declared legal for two families. I was surprised that such a dweeby little mope was so feisty.

[califred]

You guys are making me look forward to today's cases! Another 45 minutes to go here ?

[AngelaHunter]

19 minutes ago, califred said:

You guys are making me look forward to today's cases! Another 45 minutes to go here

I'm pretty sure you're going to enjoy them, especially the T-rex armed blimp and the Women Who Love Him.

[califred]

Omg you guys were right about the T Rex arms.  That man had a vile temper.  Why women were lining up for him and giving him money??

 

The landlord was a piece of work.  The whole it's not written and signed but I sent text messages asking them to leave early was also ridiculous.  I'm glad they got some rent back as well since someone was definitely staying in there.

[SRTouch]

1. Car rental woes: This one is worth watching just to see defendant's total disregard for what the judge or anyone else think. Just a small peek, in hallterview Doug questions her about her not caring about all the people watching, and she just keeps repeating "Doesn't matter, it's over." After the second or third time Doug asks if she's as stupid as he thinks. Her witty comeback, "Are YOU as stupid as I think."

[NYGirl]

OMG what a bitch!!  I wanted to pull her hair and slap her face.  What a nasty piece of work.  

If he would have sued for $200... JM would have still given him $5000...she was livid.

Edited November 23, 2016 by NYGirl

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Car rental woes: 

Holy moley! Vile, evil, lying, outrageous bitch. "Situation" with a car rental agency that banned her renting a car from anyplace. Plaintiff meets her at bail bondsman - not someone I'd want to do business with. She's an admitted thief, stealing money from a bank. She needed to get her hair done after she stole plaintiff's car and wrecked it. She should have thought less about getting her hair done and more about covering up those massive tatted arms. She seemed like a true sociopath who wouldn't know how to tell the truth even under torture and is incapable of shame. Nothing JM said to her meant a thing. Sometimes you see someone and you just hope all kinds of bad things happen to them. She's one of those people. I'm glad JM got the satisfaction of dealing real justice here. Bitch exposed herself for the slimy slug she is and got no compensation. I hope plaintiff learned that just handing over the keys to his 3-year old BMW to a total stranger he met at a bail bondsman (so he already knows she's shady) and not bothering with any insurance is a bad idea.

1 hour ago, NYGirl said:

I wanted to pull her hair and slap her face.

I think JM wanted to do that too, but unfortunately it's illegal!

Dueling Exes: Tweedledum and Tweedledee! Okay, we don't know the whole story, but he was so terribly abusive that she decided to have four kids with him? I guess he was really abusive in the periods between making and delivering all those babies. Other than that, not too interesting.

[Brattinella]

4 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Holy moley! Vile, evil, lying, outrageous bitch. "Situation" with a car rental agency that banned her renting a car from anyplace. Plaintiff meets her at bail bondsman - not someone I'd want to do business with. She's an admitted thief, stealing money from a bank. She needed to get her hair done after she stole plaintiff's car and wrecked it. She should have thought less about getting her hair done and more about covering up those massive tatted arms. She seemed like a true sociopath who wouldn't know how to tell the truth even under torture and is incapable of shame. Nothing JM said to her meant a thing. Sometimes you see someone and you just hope all kinds of bad things happen to them. She's one of those people. I'm glad JM got the satisfaction of dealing real justice here. Bitch exposed herself for the slimy slug she is and got no compensation. I hope plaintiff learned that just handing over the keys to his 3-year old BMW to a total stranger he met at a bail bondsman (so he already knows she's shady) and not bothering with any insurance is a bad idea.

Damn!  I wish I hadn't missed this one!  Sounds juicy.

[AngelaHunter]

7 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

Damn!  I wish I hadn't missed this one!  Sounds juicy.

No need to suffer! There's a great new uploader and it's up on YT already.

[AZChristian]

Her first name is Ciara, and she was arrested in NYC (Queens).  Bonus points to anyone who finds her mug shot online (with hair half done).

[SRTouch]

Oops, sorry recap got preempted by arrival of company. Looks like AngelaHunter told the story. My word, she belongs on the list of least sympathetic litigants ever, but then I guess she doesn't care, it's over.

[how55]

Quote

What's with all the horse cases lately, anyway?

Horses won't bite Doug on the way out. I just made an observation today that there seem to be no dog bite cases, or very few this season. 

Boy, that Ciara had to be one of the nastiest litigants ever - she bit Doug harder than any dog ever did. Well, it is what it is & it's over & she doesn't have to pay out of her pocket. 

[califred]

Omg that car stealer was a vile human.  I'm guessing she did the same thing at Enterprise and that's why she can't rent anywhere.  

[teebax]

What kind of fucked-upedness would one have to do in order to have every legitimate rental company in the country tell you to get bent? Holy cannoli, was she vile! You know that bitch took the car to Texas. And who asks for a ride to Texas? I live three miles from the airport and get irritated when asked for a ride to it!

[califred]

She had to have stolen a car.  My only other thought was she doesn't have a credit card but she made it sound like that wasn't the problem.

 

Enterprise thinks I owe them $140 which I've now paid them twice but I can still use any other rental car place and be the second driver if my dh rents from Enterprise.  I'm done arguing with them over a rental car from 2003.

Wasn't she from New York it's 1700 miles one way to TX and the guy said the car had 1900.

[teebax]

5 hours ago, califred said:

She had to have stolen a car.  My only other thought was she doesn't have a credit card but she made it sound like that wasn't the problem.

 

Enterprise thinks I owe them $140 which I've now paid them twice but I can still use any other rental car place and be the second driver if my dh rents from Enterprise.  I'm done arguing with them over a rental car from 2003.

Wasn't she from New York it's 1700 miles one way to TX and the guy said the car had 1900.

Maybe she went halfway and then turned around when the police started calling her? Like the plaintiff said, that woman lied so much even she doesn't know what the truth is!

[momtoall]

3 minutes ago, teebax said:

Maybe she went halfway and then turned around when the police started calling her? Like the plaintiff said, that woman lied so much even she doesn't know what the truth is!

Right!!  So why would we bother to discuss the Texas story?  More than likely it was just fluff to her ridiculous story.

[AZChristian]

I think her boyfriend was using it to Uber people around NY.  

Edited November 24, 2016 by AZChristian

[wallysmommy]

There's no way Ciara can hold a job.  No manager I know would put up with that attitude for more than 5 minutes.  When JM asked if she had insurance, she acted like she'd never heard the word before.  I so want to see the mugshot.  Please, please someone find it.  

[AZChristian]

I just checked TPC's Facebook page.  LOTS of people are clamoring for that mugshot.  I checked the Queens jail page, but they only keep webshots on line for 30 days.  The only Ciara there wasn't her.

[Brattinella]

@AngelaHunter I forgot to thank you for posting that video so quickly.  So, THANK YOU!!  And a Happy Thanksgiving to you!

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

LOTS of people are clamoring for that mugshot.

JM really wanted to see it too. Didn't she issue an order as she left that her staff should get it for her? I'm pretty sure she's not going to share it with us. :(

Quote

I forgot to thank you for posting that video so quickly. 

You're very welcome! I couldn't bear the thought of anyone missing this!

Edited November 24, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[SRTouch]

1. busted surfboard:  Short case, only 13-14 minutes instead of normal 20. Surfer college dude's board gets run over in the parking lot while he's putting on his wetsuit. Brief chuckle when MM questions his arm in a sling - he fell off the ladder climbing into his bunk bed. Anyway, his story is he got to the beach, parked and leaned his board against his car between his and the defendant's car. Defendant finishes her early morning run, hops in her car and runs over his board when she backs out, then flees the scene. Takes about zero seconds for MM, with the aid of model cars and tiny surfboard, to disprove his theory... he admits he really doesn't know how it happened, he just feels she owes him a new board. Defendant has a much more believable story - only question about her story is her claim that surfers frequently lay their boards behind the cars, but why would college kid put his board behind her car instead of his own. She says she has pictures of how surfers frequently put their boards on the pavement behind the cars in the parking lot, but MM doesn't ask to see them. Guess they wouldn't prove anything about where this particular board was anyway. She has a perfectly reasonable reason for leaving the scene, too. Seems she didn't have her phone, had plaintiff yelling at her about the board, and a crowd of other surfers gathering. She's a little lady and was feeling understandably intimidated, so she drove off. She wasn't so fleeing the scene, getting somewhere safe before reporting the incident. After she left the scene she flagged down a cop, he got on the radio and other cops were now at the scene, so she went back. Another little thing comes up in her testimony. She claims he told cops at scene it was a two year board that he had paid $500 for, but he's suing for $1000 as he says that is the replacement cost. Don't know if he jacked up the price or maybe he bought it used and wants a new one, but it doesn't matter as MM goes with defendant's more believable version.
2. Family squabble leaves brother suing sister over damaged property: Preview as we go to commercial sounds interesting. Seems adult brother and sister, each with their own 3-dog pack and her with three kids and a cat, are all sharing a one bedroom apartment? After the break story sounds even crazier. Seems plaintiff was sharing the 1 bedroom apartment with mom and a different sister, with mom on the lease. As if it's not crowded enough, defendant moves in with her three kids (not little kids, a 21yo, 16yo and 7yo). Good grief, sounds like one of those animal hoarder cases but with people. Unemployed plaintiff claims after mom/grandma died it was just him, the defendant and her kids. His role was to cook, clean, look after the kids while his sister was out doing whatever she did night and day. Story doesn't make sense, but then neither does the whole situation. Now he's claiming place was filthy and the 16yo is complaining about the mess and no food at school - evidently plaintiff wasn't doing too good in his self appointed role of cleaning and cooking. He goes to spend the weekend at gf's place, and gets a call that sis is loading his stuff into a uhaul. Cops called, illegal eviction yada yada. Soon as MM stops his monologue and asks questions his story starts to unravel. First off, his story has him living there 14 years, but actually that's "off and on," and he had only been there a month before the "illegal eviction." Oh, and the animal lover in me can't help but notice his story doesn't mention the animals once. Defendant gets her turn, and of course completely new story. (Can't help but notice she never looks at judge while talking - JJ would be yelling "Look at me!" She does do better about looking at the judge as the case goes on.) She moved in and took over apartment when mom died, and bro and other sister moved out. He calls and says he needs a place to stay, looking for a job, going back to school, he'll cook and clean, yada yada. Her story certainly contradicts his and I note that at one point she talks about him pulling a package of frozen meat out and putting it on the floor for the dogs - huh, he said kids complained about no food and there's meat in the freezer for the dogs. Anyway, he paints a picture of a drunk who disappears on 3-4 day binges, leaving his dogs behind to urinate all over the apartment, stacks of his stuff all over from him moving in temporarily, etc. She has the pictures of a mess with stacks of cardboard boxes. She denies her son contacted Family Services, but admits he contacted his school counselor. Says she promised counselor she would have bro move out, and the counselor was giving her the Memorial weekend to work it out. That's when she rented a uhaul and moved his stuff to storage (while he was off on another binge). Suspiciously, as soon as his stuff is put in storage Family Services is called in. Dude does a lot of dancing around, keeps insisting it was the 16yo who called them in, but defendant says he did in retaliation. MM is ready to get to the nuts and bolts and figure out who owes what. Most of his claim is iffy at best. She didn't just trash his stuff, she moved it to storage, paid the first month rent, and gave him the keys and access codes at the police precinct. Part of her counterclaim is he abandoned the stuff and the storage place is after her because he hasn't paid the bill. Most of his claim is dismissed, but defendant is ordered to pay him back for the phones he bought her and her kids. On the counterclaim, some of that is dismissed without prejudice. Nobody knows yet how much she'll end up owing on his storage, once she knows she can sue. She does get paid back for the first month, and cost of the uhaul. Judgement left us not knowing who will end up owing what, but we find out in hallterview that bro has since moved his sorry a$$ and his three dogs in with a different sister.
3. DOG ATTACK (minimal damage): This is almost a non-attack dog attack. Plaintiff passing defendant's property walking her Yorkie. Defendant's dog gets all excited, comes out of his yard despite the wireless fence, and grabs little dog. No question defendant's dog was out of his control and grabbed plaintiff's dog, but he feels since vet didn't find any puncture wounds plaintiff overreacted rushing it to the vet. Geez, like MM said, it's not like plaintiff presented a bloated bill, they just want to be paid the $218 they're out of pocket. Turns out defendant offered to pay half, plaintiff says no, your dog came out of your yard so you need to pay more than half - we'll accept $150, Defendant says sue me. Pretty open and shut, but defendant really comes off looking bad. Not only didn't he pay the relatively small bill, he makes the normal excuse. My dog was just a puppy and would never attack. MM had to ask a couple times before he admitted his dog outweighed the Yorkie 50 odd pounds. Finally, he installed that wireless fence without making sure it worked. Can't know exactly which one he has, but they run from $50 up to $300 or more with all kinds of different ranges and options. From his explanation, he put the collar on the puppy and puppy yelped the first time she got close to the fence, so he cut back on the strength. Now, either because the puppy has grown, the shock isn't enough, or it's just learned to ignore the shock, puppy now runs out of the yard when excited. Dude looks even worse in hallterview where he continues with his "They overreacted" defense, and plaintiffs say they probably would have dropped the whole thing if he had just apologized and acted like he gave a darn.

Edited November 25, 2016 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Surfer college dude's board gets run over in the parking lot while he's putting on his wetsuit.

Silly little boy, as usual thinking he can leave his junk all over and it's someone else's responsibility to make sure it's okay. I guess college doesn't require anyone to have an ounce of common sense. He can't even get into his bunkbed without falling. Anyway, his mommy - the cop - should have told him that if the surfboard was vertical against his car, no one could have run over it. Duh.

Quote

Family squabble leaves brother suing sister over damaged property:

I certainly didn't have a sheltered upbringing, but find myself shaking my head over the way so many people live, like six people and six dogs living in a one-bedroom apartment. Plaintiff is a 27-year old man who doesn't pay rent, doesn't hold a steady job and thinks he should goof off and sleep all day on his sister's dime. What a successful gang they are! No money, living in filth and stacked up over each other like firewood, but yet they all need cell phones. It seems not even plaintiff's "fiancee" (who must be beyond desperate) wants him living with her either. What's he supposed to do? How about get a job, you lazy, useless bum, and take care of yourself. I felt terrible pity for the younger kids, and for the animals. For plaintiff and def? Outrageous.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

This is almost a non-attack dog attack.

Agree it was a non-attack, unless you count saliva as being deadly. BUT the vet bill (and of course plaintiff had to take her dog to get checked out) was a lousy 218$. Defendant was a complete asshole and should have been happy to pay that bill. He knows exactly what happened, even though he saw nothing. On another note, it's my opinion that whoever invented these electronic fences for people who are too cheap to build a real fence to keep their dogs contained, should get 50 lashes with a wet noodle. One of the worst inventions ever and the people who use them are too irresponsible to own dogs. More aside - some people around here use them. One in particular has three huge dogs and one day as I was driving home, all three dogs were milling around in the middle of the two lane road because the power had gone off and the dogs were free to go wherever they liked.

[SRTouch]

1. Room rental kerfuffle: Plaintiff moving  into public housing, it's not ready yet, so she rents a room from defentant. Two weeks into the month to month agreement, her public housing comes through and she's ready to move out and wants the money back. So, she starts slinging all kinds of mud, trying to force defendant to return her money - place reeked of marijuana, his dogs used her room as a restroom, bedbugs, roaches, and the 60yo man traipsing through her room all hours of day and night to get to the only bathroom. Problem is, she brought no evidence, can't even prove she paid security. Even going by her own testimony, she gave 2 weeks notice instead of 30 days, so she has to prove her claims before she'd get back any money. MM has trouble with defendant's name, so he says it's Gucci - as in Gucci Gucci Goo. Anyway, he denies everything she said, even says she tried to help rent the room singing it's praises to her friends who came to see it after she gave notice. He has his daughter there to testify she visits with her young son, and of course she'd never bring her kid around if it was full of pot, bugs, and dog poop - yeah, like she's an unbiased witness. What it comes down to is that plaintiff needs to prove by  a preponderance of the evidence what she claims, and she proved nothing. Case dismissed
2. Jailbird suing over bail money: Plaintiff looks and sounds like a wino off the streets that they cleaned up for court. His story is that he met defendant's bf while they were both in jail. Somewhere, somehow, plaintiff has thousands in the bank, and he gives defendant authority to withdraw $3,000 for bf's bail, to be repaid when plaintiff gets out. Plaintiff is out, and wants his money. Defendant says any deal was between plaintiff and the bf, so plaintiff is suing the wrong person. Bf even provided defendant a tape - kind of funny, but inadmissible. Turns out bf is back in jail, but in tape he says if anyone owes money it's him, but he doesn't because he worked off the debt doing legal work for plaintiff. Nope, MM says, what bf is admitting in tape, if true, is a crime - working as a lawyer without being licensed. Besides, the defendant admits she withdrew the money, so she owes it.
3. BAD TRANSMISSION: Plaintiff bought a bad used transmission from defendant, and wants cash refund despite well established policy that defendant will honor exchanges but no cash refunds. I don't think they ever said exactly what type business defendant has, but sounds like a salvage yard. Anyway, when plaintiff found the transmission was bad he says defendant agreed to make an exception to the no cash rule since he was 90 miles away. So he sends the transmission back with a driver, but after making the 90 mile trip they won't take it back because driver doesn't have the original receipt. MM says that's just being petty, defendant knows it's what they sold, they should have taken it back without the receipt. Big kerfuffle probably more about cash refund vs store credit than it was about the receipt, but anyway phones wars, threats, etc ensue and defendant refuses to take it back. Plaintiff has no proof defendant ever agreed to a cash refund, MM orders defendant to give store credit (even without receipt) if plaintiff brings back the transmission. Got impression in hallterview plaintiff may just keep transmission for parts instead of making another 180 mile round trip to get store credit with a business he says he'll never do business with again.

Edited November 25, 2016 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[BubblingKettle]

Defendant Ms. Russell really didn't have many brain cells firing, but at least she had a nice outfit and accessories. And I wonder what keeps her with her incarcerated boyfriend. Drug addict, another charge for selling, getting her involved in pretend legal deals in prison, .....she even seemed on-board with his Hip-Hop and Muslim board games (wth?).  Ms. Russell, take a whiff of smelling salts. He's a shit, his board games are shit, you're not bright, get out while you still can.

I especially enjoyed this clueless exchange:

JMM: You want to live like this?

Ms. R: I know....it's awful.

JMM: Yeah, you're a grown woman.

Ms. R: {just realizing the judge was talking about HER having a messed up life} Oh, me? Oh well...well. hmm mm mm

Edited November 25, 2016 by CoolWhipLite

[AngelaHunter]

Here I was crying into my wine as I sat down to enjoy the richly-described eps and saw there was nothing but football. Luckily, that wonderful person on YT got it uploaded already. Can't wait for kerfuffles and non-firing brain cells!

[Broderbits]

Good gravy, that woman in the 2nd case is dumber than a sack of hair! I hope there's someone in her life who can explain what happened because she just looked so confused leaving court.

And can I have a brief "get off my lawn" moment with those clueless young people in the Harvey segments who think 2016 means anything goes and you can just smoke pot wherever you want (even if it's still illegal). 

[AngelaHunter]

37 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

those clueless young people in the Harvey segments

You watch Levin and his clown posse? I can't think of anything that makes me hit the FF button faster than this: *shudder*

 

[Broderbits]

51 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

You watch Levin and his clown posse? I can't think of anything that makes me hit the FF button faster than this: *shudder*

 

In my defense, I had to watch on YouTube because of football and was playing a game at the same time. Usually I just ignore him, he really doesn't bother me that much.