The People's Court - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

Just now, Broderbits said:

Usually I just ignore him, he really doesn't bother me that much.

I wish I could say the same.

[Brattinella]

27 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I wish I could say the same.

Seriously.  I see that screen shot and I KNOW the filth he is spewing!  Most obnoxious person on TV.

[AngelaHunter]

5 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

Most obnoxious person on TV.

"Obnoxious-er? HE HARDLY KNEW 'ER!"

[califred]

They played yesterday's episode here today bc it was on during football yesteTday.

 

going to watch today's on YouTube 

[teebax]

15 hours ago, Broderbits said:

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). 

 I think she was playing dumb but MM didn't buy it.  At least, I hope she was playing dumb. Either that or her brain cells are fried. 

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, teebax said:

At least, I hope she was playing dumb. Either that or her brain cells are fried. 

Maybe she indulged in some of that coke or crack or whatever with her "common-law husband" of a few years (most of which seem to have been spent in jail, doing paid legal work for other cons even though he's not a lawyer) AKA "Celine the Dream"(??) and did fry her brain. I'm pretty sure I'd remember if I got a check for 3,000$, no matter even if it was a year ago. As for plainitff, I guess even at his age and through his incarcerations he still thinks there's honor among thieves.

Last case with the natty little car dealer suing def for a transmission: His evidence, in total, was a bunch of hearsay, "No, I have no receipts or proof of anything. The guy who worked for me said that def. told him we'd get our money back... " and couldn't seem to understand that wasn't enough to win. He still didn't understand it in the hall.

[OhioSongbird]

Ms. Ciara the car thief had her arms crossed the whole case.  JJ would have put a stop to that shit in about 30 seconds!  How could anyone be friends with her unless they're as shady as she is. OTOH the 'rental' guy seemed a bit under the radar, too. I hope she doesn't have any kids...but sadly, I'll bet she does....all on welfare.  In our brief time as landlords we unfortunately rented to someone like her.  Section 8, trashed the apt and broke into our storage room while we were on vacation (we lived downstairs).  Kicked her and her roommate out...another gal with 3 kids....and not one sign of remorse, guilt or anything.

My Momma raised me better.

[teebax]

2 hours ago, OhioSongbird said:

Ms. Ciara the car thief had her arms crossed the whole case.  JJ would have put a stop to that shit in about 30 seconds!  How could anyone be friends with her unless they're as shady as she is. OTOH the 'rental' guy seemed a bit under the radar, too. I hope she doesn't have any kids...but sadly, I'll bet she does....all on welfare.  In our brief time as landlords we unfortunately rented to someone like her.  Section 8, trashed the apt and broke into our storage room while we were on vacation (we lived downstairs).  Kicked her and her roommate out...another gal with 3 kids....and not one sign of remorse, guilt or anything.

My Momma raised me better.

This post makes me uncomfortable. You're making a lot of assumptions. There was no mention of her having kids or being on welfare. 

Shes a scumbag based on what she did say in court. Let's not make stereotypes based on things we don't know. 

[momtoall]

1 hour ago, teebax said:

This post makes me uncomfortable. You're making a lot of assumptions. There was no mention of her having kids or being on welfare. 

I think MM asked her if she had children and she answered no.

1 hour ago, teebax said:

 

[OhioSongbird]

Sorry about that teebax.  I was only referring to her demeanor and being a thief and a liar.  My tenants were white so I meant no offense to anyone of color.  My bad assuming she had kids as I missed that part.

[teebax]

On 11/26/2016 at 4:20 PM, OhioSongbird said:

Sorry about that teebax.  I was only referring to her demeanor and being a thief and a liar.  My tenants were white so I meant no offense to anyone of color.  My bad assuming she had kids as I missed that part.

Fair enough. It's all good. 

[SRTouch]

Program info says this is a rerun from sept, but I don't remember it

1. Breakup woes: Truly unrepentant and totally dislikable defendant gets booted from courtroom. Plaintiff's story is that bf moved out of their shared apartment while she's at work without any notice. As long or he's leaving, he takes the two TVs, playstations, loves eat etc. Oh, and he's on the lease, so he's skipping out early and leaving plaintiff to make up his $800 a month rent for remainder of lease. When plaintiff asks the neighbors if they saw who took her stuff, turns out it was bf and her sister - yep, bf took her stuff and moved in with younger sis. Don't know if defendant would have told a different story, plaintiff went first and he just agrees with everything she said. Prince charming quit his last job at the carwash three months ago because it didn't pay enough, so guess he just stays at home playing games. Doesn't bother him at all that he took the TVs and video games plaintiff's two kids used to play with. MM asks what plaintiff and her sis see in defendant - she doesn't have an answer but dude volunteers that he's just good at sex. When his his current gf, whoever she may be, argues with dude, the 27yo dude heads home to momma until they take him back. MM is disgusted with the guy, kicks him out and plaintiff wins. Course she was asking for full replacement for what he took, so she doesn't get the amount she wanted. Out in the hallterview dude still doesn't have a defense. Doug asks how he feels about MM kicking him out, he "don't feel no kind a way. She just a female, and ya know how they is."
2. tow suit: Plaintiff suing because her car was towed and was impounded. Ah, this doesn't sound like one of those rare cases where the tow company is going to pay. According to plaintiff's own testimony, she was illegally parked and got a ticket. Problem is, when she calls around looking for her car, the paperwork has fallen through the cracks and nobody knows her car was towed. She claims she was calling and checking the tow logs everyday and eventually reported it stolen. Eventually, the finance company calls her and tells her the car is impounded and racking up fees. Now, over to defendant/tow dude. Turns out cops didn't have car towed, the homeowner whose driveway she was blocking called after it was ticketed. After she finally found the car and started complaining, tow manager went to the precinct and found the tow sheet in the log book. MM takes a recess and goes to call the precinct because it sounds like the litigants both followed the rules, and cops dropped the ball. Yep, cops dropped the ball. Tow company did their job, so they don't have to pay.Too bad for plaintiff, she's out a bunch of money, but she's suing the wrong party. MM promises her staff will provide plaintiff with her evidence so plaintiff can file a claim against the city. Don't know if plaintiff will follow through, and as Harv points out between cases, some government agencies are protected against lawsuits, so she may be out of luck.
3. Bad plumbing work: Actually, nothing wrong with the work, just that the plumber wasn't licensed in the town. Plumber was hired to pressure test the plaintiff's gas line because the gas had been off over a year. He came, did the test, but the gas company wouldn't accept it because he wasn't licensed in that town - though he is licensed elsewhere. He's something of an arrogant dude, he won't return the $600 he was paid for what is essentially worthless work. Heck, sounds like he didn't even try to work out something with the gas company or city... he got paid, anything else is the customer's problem and he isn't going to help unless he gets more money. He insists he was willing to rectify the license issue, but he wanted plaintiff to pay to get the license. Guy rubbed me the wrong way. Plaintiff has copy of yellow page ad where defendant says he, services the town as a master plumber, yet defendant argues in court the ad must be old. Plumber talks about all the other pressure tests he's done, then acts like the license snafu is plaintiff's fault. Uh, no, plaintiff paid $600 for defendant's expertise counting on him being a licensed master plumber, it's not up to him to pay anymore so defendant to get the license. Then some nonsense that it's not about the lucense, but about pulling a permit. Again, when you pay a professional to do a job, you expect them to know if permits are needed... otherwise plaintiff could have just hired a handyman and paid a fraction of that $600. Instead, he did his due diligence, looked for a licensed plumber, read the reviews, then was denied gas service because plumber wasn't licensed. Sounds like something that maybe should go to the state licensing board.

Edited November 28, 2016 by SRTouch
Rerun comment added

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Plaintiff suing because her car was towed and was impounded.

Just the usual self-centeredness and entitlement so prevalent these days. She needed to park and since it's all about her, she blocks someone else's driveway so they can't get out and then just walks away. Actually she probably blocked two driveways, but who's counting?  I didn't feel sorry for her the way JM did. Maybe from now on, she won't inconvenience other people so casually just to meet her own needs. A lot of people need to be hit in the wallet for a message to get through. She can sue the city of New York. Yeah, good luck with that!

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Bad plumbing work:

Not to mention "bad hair day." Plaintiff needs to get his overly-long, product-infused yellowed hair cut. Def. looked to be sporting a John Dillinger do.  OH, the horror.

[califred]

I've seen this episodes before but not the first case. What a complete asshole he is.

[AngelaHunter]

14 minutes ago, califred said:

What a complete asshole he is.

I was unable to rewatch that sub-human creature babbling away. Ugh.

[califred]

I wonder why I missed it the first time but have seen the second half.  I bet my mom called that day pre my DVR.  

[SRTouch]

Sweeps are over, so back to reruns for awhile. This is where the two half hour episodes of JJ and Hot Bench edge out the hour long shows, because the half hour format let's them show both new and old shows.

1. fancy party flop: Defendants want a high priced, catered party for a 75th birthday. They hire plaintiff to cater the affair and provide wait staff, but since they're all friends and have done affairs in the past nobody feels the need to bother with contracts and such. Turns out they needed something in writing, because after the affair they can't even agree on how much to pay the staff. When the plaintiffs hired the staff they told the staff the defendants would pay $20-25 after the party, depending on their performance. Defendants say, no, deal was $15-20. They say the staff were terrible waiters and bartenders, so with the exception of a couple good workers they paid $15, giving the good ones $20. That's the start of the problems, and before it's all said and done they suing each other for a combined 9k. Turns out, defendants were right about the $5 descrepancy, as MM finds a text where plaintiff says the staff would be paid $15-20. Nobody gets anything except a lecture on the importance of having a contract.
2. kids damage parked car: plaintiff parks her disabled junker on the side of her building. Problem is it's a tight space, and she's blocking access to the back yard. This is a 4 family dwelling, but she feels justified blocking everyone from using the back yard for the 2 years she has it sitting there. Anyone going to the back yard, or even the meter man coming to check the meter, end up either squeezing by or climbing on the vehicle. After a while she alleges the kids start using her junker as playground equipment, and now she wants the parents to pay to get it fixed. Plaintiff has big smile on her face when MM points out she is effectively blocking access and depriving the kids of the ability to play in their own yard. I'm really disliking this plaintiff as she explains the reason the car has been sitting is because she didn't have insurance when she let her neighbor drunk sister drive her and the kids to the beach. MM is joking around with plaintiff, and I think plaintiff admits a little more than she would have without the jokes. So, plaintiff's car has been sitting because her uninsured car caused an accident, she failed to pay the judgement, and lost her license. At long last she's paid the other motorist's damages, so she can get her license and get back on the road once the car is fixed from the accident. But wait, additional damage has been done while it blocked access to the rear of the house. She claims the kids broke the seal on her 14yo sunroof. Plaintiff thinks things are going great as she jokes and laughs with the judge, then MM turns and starts giving her a hard time about feeling all entitled and justified in causing everyone else to go out of their way. Now it comes out that plaintiff has 7 kids. MM asks where her kids play with her blocking back yard... turns out she doesn't have custody of the 6 older kids, only the youngest, a 1 1/2yo, lives with her. As much as I'm disliking plaintiff, I'm liking that the defendant offered to pay part of the damages when first approached. Plaintiff had no proof the kids damaged the vehicle, but defendants felt they may have and were willing to help fix the car. Originally, the repair was supposed to cost $700, and they were willing to pay half. Plaintiff kept getting additional estimates, and each estimate was double the previous one, until finally defendant said forget it. Now plaintiff is asking for 5k to fix a nonrunning vehicle that has been sitting for two years after it was in an accident. Defendants say they're willing to pay $350 because they previously agreed to, but now after all the jacked up estimates they aren't sure their two kids did any damage - like I said, I like the defendants. MM orders defendant pay the $350. Wow, plaintiff is shocked MM wouldn't spend more time listening to her "evidence." I woildn't have given her anything.
3. jailbird sued by old friend when he gets out: plaintiff claims she loaned her friend of 30 years money and has never been paid back as dude has been in and out of jail. This could be a tough case to win, as it's over a 6 year old loan. Even if everyone is trying to be honest their memories could be very different. Defendant isn't helping his case much, though, calling the money a loan in one sentence than saying it was never a loan a few seconds later. Somehow, in those few seconds, the money became payment for work he claims he did for her and she denies was ever done. Ah, now the big reveal. Plaintiff hung onto the check she wrote all those years ago, and right there in the memo line we see "loan". Oops, there goes his "it was never a loan" defense. now, the ridiculous counterclaim where he wants money for slander because she has been telling people he never paid back a loan that was never a loan. Dude should have just admitted she won when she produced the check, but instead he still wants to argue it was not a loan. Surprise plaintiff wins and counterclaim laughed out of court. Another case where intro has nothing to do with case. During intro plaintiff's jaw drops as she hears defendant claims the loan was forgiven when they hooked up... not word one of any hook ups in court.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

kids damage parked car: plaintiff parks her disabled junker on the side of her building.

This irked just as much the second time as it did on first airing, or maybe even more. Plaintiff (no job, no baby daddies) loves having babies, but her first crop of six has been dumped on her mom to take care of. Okay, so she loves having babies as long as someone else takes care of/pays for them. Babies are cute, but when they're not babies anymore, send 'em to Grandma! She just seemed so smilingly proud and pleased with herself about everything - car accident with drunken friend while plaintiff is in labour with her 7th, no car insurance, license suspended and  birth control being something she just doesn't DO. All that isn't bad enough but she thinks she's winning the lottery from her neighbours. So what if her 14 yr old POS is blocking everyone's path? Not her fault  - she has no job and no money so other people should just understand and accommodate her, and that includes the neighbours who shouldn't allow THEIR kids to play in the backyard just in case something happens to plaintiff's 14 yr old POS truck and... whatever.

Quote

 fancy party flop:

I always love it when we see mature, intelligent people making such incredibly dumb decisions. "The wait staff will get 20$/hr, unless they do a lousy job, then they get 15$/hr." What kind of idiot would a person have to be to say, "That sounds perfectly reasonable to me."? I wonder how many times the person paying for the party has said, "Gee, they were awesome so I really want to pay them 20$/hr!"? Contracts? Who needs 'em?

[SRTouch]

1. Coworker vacation drama: drama queen plaintiff is just as bad on the second viewing. This is the girl who acts exasperated when MM asks her for clarification and rolls her eyes when she doesn't like what she hears - oh, and addresses the judge as Miss, Mrs, and finally Judge. Anyway, group of friends and coworkers decide to party in Puerto Rico. Plaintiff puts the flight on her card, defendant pays for the condo. A week before they leave kerfuffle over who gets the room with a balcony. Defendant has the texts where she's trying to work it out, but plaintiff pulls out - not only pulls out, but cancels the defendant's group's tickets without telling them. So, here defendant has a big nonrefundable charge for the condo, and no plane tickets. Now kerfuffle turns into BIG KERFUFFLE, with the coworkers and respective friends showing up at the deli during each other's shift. Nope, boss isn't having that, everybody loses their job. Turns out the two groups end up going on the trip separately, but of course it costs more because it's now last minute. The former friends have turned into litigants, everybody wants the other side to pay their increased costs. MM goes through the texts, determines drama queen was unreasonable about the room/balcony kerfuffle and should not have canceled the tickets. Plaintiff is the big loser, she has to eat her increased expenses and pay the difference in defendant's bill.
2. Commercial lease gone bad: Plaintiff goes through a series of leases on a commercial space over a 5 year period. First two years go fine while he's renting the upstairs storefront. When the lease is up the landlords tells him they're having trouble renting the downstairs storefront because his business is too noisy. He's going to have to leave if they can't find anyone. He's doing pretty good, so he agrees to leases both storefronts. Turns out to be more than he expected, so when a friend is looking for space he subleasesublease her the bottom storefront. More time goes by, new business moves into neighborhood and cuts his rates. He's thinking about changing his business, and he puts up an ad on Craigslist offering his space for rent. This upsets the landlord, he's not supposed to sublet any space - it right there in the lease. He's already sublet one space and now he going to move out and sublet the remaining storefront without even talking to the owner of the building. Nope, enough, landlord wants him out (it's now month to month rental). Now they start bickering over every minor complaint they've had over the last 5 years, and end up suing each other. Plaintiff wants back $2000 security deposit, landlord wants $4000 in sewer and snow removal payments he missed over the years. Uh oh, landlord has trouble trying to show those missed payments. Mrs defendant says it's in her ledgers, but she doesn't have her ledgers in court. Mr defendant contradicts the wife, says plaintiff never paid (wife was the one who dealt with tenant and collected money). Plaintiff is no better, he has no evidence. Rough justice time: nobody gets anything. Plaintiff starts yapping as MM is ruling, and she warns him he's about to talking himself into paying a month's rent since he moved out with no notice - so shut up, already.
3. defendant's dog kills plaintiff's puppy: I remember case from the first run. Defendant is in the common fenced area with her admittedly un-dog-friendly pit bill when drunk puppy babysitter let's two puppy enter the area. Defendant was only tenant on lease paying pet deposit, so puppies were not even supposed to be on property. Before defendant realised puppies were in the area, her dog had killed one of the puppies. It's terrible, but the defendant did nothing negligent, the drunk did, so plaintiff is suing the wrong person. Plaintiff wouldn't win anyway. He shows up in court with his wife instead of the puppy sitter, then he and wife don't even agree on what happened. So, the only eye witness in court is the defendant, and his witness, disagrees with him about whether the area is fenced... Actually, I think wife came because she thinks lawsuit is bogus. Then as MM is telling plaintiff how it was the puppy sitter's fault, wifey is raising her hand to say that's what she has already told hubby. Turns out defendant is sort of family - the mother in law of wife's son (not clear if the husband is the dad). Oops, wifey is on a roll. Defendant didn't bring up the fact the sitter was drinking, but wifey says she smelled of alcohol and had a can of beer - ok, maybe not falling down drunk, but definitely at fault for not keeping close watch over the puppies. Turns out both puppy sitter and defendant got booted from their respective apartments. Plaintiff owns the place, and he booted defendant while wifey booted puppy sitter.

Edited December 1, 2016 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[Jamoche]

Plaintiff hires defendant to redo a really crappy ceiling. Defendant is going to subcontract part of it, that falls through, but he still charges for the whole job even though all that got done was tearing out the old ceiling. Ho-hum so far, but then def decides to call the plaintiffs "bottom-feeders" and double down on it. Because he's a good upstanding blue-collar worker, and he's never been sued before, and blah blah blah but really, the dog whistles are going off: he's white, plaintiffs are black.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

drama queen plaintiff is just as bad on the second viewing.

I'd say she was even worse on second viewing. All I could think is that any man who hooks up with her better learn to sleep with one eye open, because she's definitely the type who would pull a Lorena Bobbit.  Hard to believe that someone that nasty and vicious even ever had friends to begin with. She couldn't even rein in the insolence she displayed to JM. Lots of class here - all of it low. Very, very low.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Commercial lease gone bad: 

No matter how many times we see it, I never get over seeing adults who are in business but pay everything in cash and never bother getting a receipt or proof of any kind they paid. Defs had the ledger to prove he didn't pay all his bills, but well - it's at home. Of course it is!  Who knew they'd need it? Def's hubby is a real estate agent, and he also doesn't think they need anything in writing. JM needs to just trust everyone's word.

I never saw the dog case, and skipped it again. If I hear about one more backyard breeder/puppy miller, it will be too soon.

[Jamoche]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

1. Coworker vacation drama: drama queen plaintiff is just as bad on the second viewing. This is the girl who acts exasperated when MM asks her for clarification and rolls her eyes when she doesn't like what she hears - oh, and addresses the judge as Miss, Mrs, and finally Judge.

Love how the camera does a slow pull out to emphasize the large "Judge Marilyn Milian" sign right underneath her.

[califred]

That dog breeder husband is such s wanker, it's the caretaker he should be suing.  I can't imagine doing that to my wife's in law.  

[SRTouch]

Today starts with a couple unusual events. First off, we hear Douglas go through swearing in of the litigants. More importantly, when MM comes in she sweeps through the courtroom, dragging Douglas along, out into the hallway. Yep, this is a rerun of when she goes and greets Doug Llewelyn and gives him a jacket and microphone.

1. Bedbug infestation: pretty blond girl wants back her money because she claims not only her apartment, but several others in the complex were infested by bedbugs. Well rehearsed story, I wonder if she doesn't have notes as she keeps glancing down. She has the facial expressions down, too, when complex manager disputes her claims. Must have practiced this performance in front of a mirror. This is the girl who brought Mom, the lawyer, to court... and Mom (a prosecutor) wants nothing to do with testifying. Anyway, she's claiming pretty much the whole place is infested, but she has no proof and the only witness is the manager on the defendant's side of the aisle, who, of course denies ever hearing from her or anyone else about an infestation. Not only that, but the girl shared the apartment, and the other tenant never complained. Then when the girl decides to break the lease she brings in a series of her friends to take over the lease, but the roommate vetoes them all. Yep, girl refuses to live there because of the horrid bedbug infestation, but tries to get friends to move in and take over the lease. Sure sounds like MM is right, girl just wanted out because the roommate was hard to get along with. Most of her case is out, but there's still questions about whether she should get any of her deposit back. So, MM goes through damage claims and decides they get a little bit. Little chuckle at the end. Seems there was a chance for double the about wrongfully withheld from the  deposit,  but the suit was filed 1 day early. That almost got mom, the prosecutor to stand, but she sat back down and refused to talk when MM said she'd really like to hear from her.
2. Computer repair kerfuffle: 40 year friendship ends when one friend tries to get the others 15 year old Dell system working. Both these guys are retirement age, but still working - the one guy fixes computers out of his home and the other does sells life insurance. Insurance dude needs his Dell to talk to New York Life Insurance. Computer dude determines the old system has bit the dirt, so he cobbles up a working system for cheap. Unfortunately, the NY Life software has some proprietary deal with Dell, so the software needs a Dell to work. Computer dude takes back his system and breathes new life into the old Dell. Insurance guy paid the agreed upon $300 for the first attempt, but won't pay the additional couple hundred it took to get the old Dell running. So, he ended up having to buy a new Dell, anyway. Computer dude says he worked on the dinosaur system, got insurance guy a working system, and he should be paid. Unfortunately, he did the work on the old Dell without a go ahead from the insurance guy, so MM says there was no meeting of the minds, no contract, computer dude out of luck.
3. cat pee chairs: Pretty straight forward case. Customer brings upholstered chairs to be redone because they stink of cat urine. After waiting for 10 months and paying thousands, they get back good looking stinky chairs. They take the still stinky chairs to a different guy and find the problem. Seems the fabric was replaced over the old urine soaked padding. This is one of those litigants who should have settled and never put their practices on TV. Dude says he let the chairs air out, stripped the old fabric, and put on new - he never completely strips the chairs - and he claims the chairs did not stink when delivered. Really, only question for me was whether the customer had to give the guy a second chance to fix the problem - did they give up and take it elsewhere to fast? Nah, they had an email exchange where all the guy did was offer to give them a deodorizer spray. They took one of the 4 chairs to someone else, and he took off the covering and found old padding covered with new. MM quickly decides the upholstery job was worthless, but now we get to the silly counterclaim. As if the dude didn't look bad enough trying to argue his normal practice to get rid of smell is to let the furniture sit for months and then put new padding on top of the stink, now he's suing for fabric that the customer has a paid receipt for. His answer when MM points out they've already paid - **embarrassed snicker** good question. No suprise, plaintiff gets full refund and defendant gets embarrassed on TV.

Edited December 1, 2016 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

40 year friendship ends when one friend tries to get the others 15 year old Dell system working.

Who on earth would spend a cent fixing a 15 year old computer? In the last 15 years I've replaced my computer four times and it might be time to do so yet again.  I'm not tech savvy. Why would def's company insist on a certain brand of computer? Is this possible? Why would it matter?

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

As if the dude didn't look bad enough trying to argue his normal practice to get rid of small is to let the furniture sit for months and then put new padding on top of the stink

Sneaky practices to go with his oily appearance. Reminds me of those places that sell used mattresses  - they put new covers on them, and leave the interior intact, with all their nasty stains, horrific bodily fluids and bedbugs. Never, EVER buy a second hand mattress (or any upholstered piece of furniture). "I'm telling you!" to quote the revolting Levin.

[Jamoche]

3 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Who on earth would spend a cent fixing a 15 year old computer? In the last 15 years I've replaced my computer four times and it might be time to do so yet again.  I'm not tech savvy. Why would def's company insist on a certain brand of computer? Is this possible? Why would it matter?

That one got a lot of discussion the last time it ran, and nobody had any clue. If my company insists I have a certain kind of computer then they need to provide it. If it's really hardware dependent then it's also likely that it needs to be a particular up-to-date model, not just any random antique Dell. More likely the computer owner was confused.

[califred]

The fact that a 15 yr old computer still worked at all is astonishing. My gateway lasted from 2000-2011 with just one major service.  The one I had built to replace it is about due now. 

 

The chair guy likely just lost a lot of customers.

[EtheltoTillie]

On 11/26/2016 at 10:51 AM, AngelaHunter said:

Maybe she indulged in some of that coke or crack or whatever with her "common-law husband" of a few years (most of which seem to have been spent in jail, doing paid legal work for other cons even though he's not a lawyer) AKA "Celine the Dream"(??) and did fry her brain. I'm pretty sure I'd remember if I got a check for 3,000$, no matter even if it was a year ago. As for plainitff, I guess even at his age and through his incarcerations he still thinks there's honor among thieves.

Last case with the natty little car dealer suing def for a transmission: His evidence, in tota

Bail money case was one of the saddest I've ever seen, yet also had its hilarious moments. Pickled brain elderly oenophile (we can no longer use the politically incorrect term wino) is conned into providing bail money to Celine the Dream, a jailhouse lawyer with a sideline as a board game "inventor."  That guy was smooth!  

Here's a question for you. Just how did the old man execute that "power of attorney"?  Somehow I don't think they have a notary "republic" available for the inmates at the detention unit at 100 Centre Street. (Unless one of those correction officers who is ready to invest $100K in a board game goldmine also has a sideline as a notary for inmates--hey, pretty much anyone over 18 can take and pass New York's notary exam.)  Hence that weird check, which girlfriend could not explain. I think they just got old gentleman to give them a check from his account.

I got a kick out of the girlfriend's explanation of how she acquired her gem of a boyfriend:  "Oh I met him on 125th Street."  Not in a particular establishment, you will note. Just hanging out on the street, it sounded like.  For those of you from out of town, 125th Street is the main thoroughfare through Harlem. It has the Apollo Theater and President Clinton's office and lots of stores.  But it's not a meeting place for singles.  It's sort of like saying you met someone on Hollywood Boulevard.  Maybe Celine flirted with her outside the subway station at Lenox Avenue. He seems to have the grifter's uncanny ability to suss out vulnerable souls.  

 She got a lot of audience derision.  One audience member right behind defendant kept laughing uproariously. I usually don't pay attention to the audience. 

Celine made a valiant effort to argue that plaintiff was suing the wrong person. It was a good argument (more below) but shows that his jailhouse lawyer skills were flawed, because if GF was the wrong person, then he himself was the right person. Oops. No problem there--plaintiff also owes him for his "legal" work.  Well, he's on Rikers now and can't be released for an appearance on People's Court. Only real court. Judge M made the right call because girlfriend was more than just an agent and really a coconspirator in the scheme to get $ from old guy. 

I've spent way too much time thinking about this!

Edited December 2, 2016 by GussieK

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, GussieK said:

I got a kick out of the girlfriend's explanation of how she acquired her gem of a boyfriend:  "Oh I met him on 125th Street."  

He was her common-law husband, if you don't mind!

3 hours ago, GussieK said:

Well, he's on Rikers now and can't be released for an appearance on People's Court. Only real court.

And that was a  shame. I really wanted to see this brilliant inventor and grifter (and jailbird), "The Dream." Why can't we have people unable to appear testifying on Skype or something these days, instead of those old and mostly useless affidavits?

[SRTouch]

1. working for phone doesn't pay: This is the asperger college kid who says he worked for a local store owner all summer expecting a fancy new phone, and dude gave him a beat up used phone which Verizon had locked. Don't know if there was just a failure to communicate or if store owner was taking advantage - I seem to remember last time people came down both sides. As I remember, kid was working under the table to avoid messing up his disability payments, so there's a real discrepancy in how much work he actually did while working off the books. MM believes his story about the phone - he is real specific about the model, and he definitely did not get what he wanted. I FF'ed  through most of it this time, but kid wins case - $450 out of the $1500 he asked for.
2. ungrateful brother of the year: Plaintiff foolishly put her name on the line for a car for her brother and gf. Evidently, the girl has been working on improving her credit so she can start some business. Apparently, brother isn't sure what it means to be employed... when asked he nods, yes he's employed, but turns out he isn't, and apparently isn't even sure when he last had a job. Gf works, but has no license and bad credit, so plaintiff steps up and co-signs a loan, and puts the  insurance in her name... Deal is brother will drive and gf pay the bills. Nope, payments are late, insurance lapsed, and to top it off turns out brother doesn't have a license either. After a kerfuffle, brother gets his license and car is insured in his name. Doesn't help much, payments still not being made and insurance not being paid. If we were talking one or two late payments over a multi-year period it wouldn't be bad enough, but these deadbeats didn't even have the car six months. Another big kerfuffle (maybe when plaintiff learned there were $600 in tickets in her name as the primary on the registration) lots of name calling, drinks thrown in faces, maybe even a punch. Brother and gf are all bent out of shape because plaintiff takes the car and gives it to someone who WILL MAKE THE PAYMENTS. Evidently they see nothing wrong with not making the payments. They say they know plaintiff's credit is being hurt, but it's all good, gf is on the loan so her credit is being tanked as well. I spent most of the case thinking the brother was the bad one, then gf makes some snide comment that plaintiff's "little boyfriend" is making the payments, not the plaintiff. Huh, what does that matter? Point is, SOMEONE ELSE IS PAYING YOUR BILLS! Watching these two ingrates made me have to get up and take Frankie out for a walk. (Frankie is my older cat that goes out with me. He sticks close, comes when called (mostly) and goes out without a harness. Silly Cat, OTOH, needs his lease or he may take off across the street chasing leaves.)

Edited December 2, 2016 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

working for phone doesn't pay: 

I always love it when we hear, "Are you kidding? I can't actually go out and get gainful employment. It would mess up my SSI/Unemployment payments/Welfare." Can't have the handouts being compromised.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

ungrateful brother of the year: 

"No, no, no, no, no!" Of course brother doesn't work. He lets his "girl" (who is probably earning minimum wage) work. That's good enough when you have a dumb, gullible  sister who's willing to put her credit on the line to buy you an Acura, even though you can't even keep a driver's license or use the car for a few months without racking 500$ in parking tickets. But who cares what messes all these fools make? What distressed me is that those two unrepentant, nasty, hateful, amoral losers managed to breed. What chance does the kid have?

Edited December 2, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[califred]

As the parent of a kid with Autism that kids mom should have been far more on top of that situation.  I missed this one the first time.  The kid likely doesn't understand that his benefits would be gone or that working under the table is illegal, that's on Mom.  Almost every kid I know on the spectrum are a a rule follower to a T.

 

That sister needs to learn to quit helping people.  And the brother needs to get a work ethic.

[SRTouch]

17 minutes ago, califred said:

That sister needs to learn to quit helping people.  And the brother needs to get a work ethic.

Well, maybe the sister will learn something from this fiasco, but brother and gf? Nope, judging from the hallterview they don't see anything wrong with their behavior - so what if her credit is harmed, ours was too! In fact, the brother acts like he should be commended for still letting sis see his child - when you know he just drops off the kid (without talking to the sister) when he needs a babysitter.

[aemom]

I'm always behind but I love reading everyone's comments and especially appreciate the recaps from SRTouch.

As for the surfboard kid with the arm in the sling. I think I may have figured out what happened. He put the surfboard where he said and it slid down from its vertical position to be lying flat on the ground where the defendant could now easily run it over.

It's still his fault, because that's a stupid place to put your board and if it slides down, too bad for you numnut.

[califred]

No one watch today?  

 

Case #1 was a "landlord" who took a deposit and a lease with no dates on it for a 3 bdr place.  After fixing it up decides to check the ladies credit (actually realized he could rent it for more after he had fixed it up) and decides to "help" her he will Rent her a 1 bdr.  She's not ok with that and he thinks he can keep her deposit. 

If this was JJ he'd have been kicked out of court for his crappy attitude. In the hallterview he still thinks he should have been able to keep her $$$.

 

Case #2....  dog attack at obedience school.  Dog gets away from owner, grabs other dog in class.  Attacking dog owner feels like the bill is way too high and they should only pay half.  Attackee wins full vet bill for 2 surgeries.  

 

Case #3 Bad shed build.  Bowing roof, space in the roof.  Missed the end so someone else has to fill in.

[AZChristian]

Quote

Case #3 Bad shed build.  Bowing roof, space in the roof.  Missed the end so someone else has to fill in.

Judge Milian opined that the problem with the building was that there wasn't a woman around to read the instructions.  She looked up the instructions online, and - as the daughter of a contractor - saw right away that it wasn't manufacturer error; it was stupid "don't need no instructions" handyman.  She gave the plaintiff the full amount needed to purchase another shed (because that one was ruined), plus half the defendant's labor.  I wouldn't have given the defendant anything.  But maybe he can use that 50% to go buy himself some teeth.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Case #1 was a "landlord" who took a deposit and a lease with no dates on it for a 3 bdr place.

Is everyone who appears here auditioning for some inane reality show? This goofball, A-hole with his grinning and gesturing was annoying in the extreme. He takes the deposit, keeps it and says plaintiff told him to take his time fixing the place - sure - a few days or a few months was fine with her! Then he decides he knows what's best for her (since he's known her all his life and she needs him to make her decisions - not) and is kind enough to offer her an apartment she doesn't want. They had a 'greement for the 'partment! She's so much better off not living anywhere near that imbecile. Glad she got her money back. Just sorry she couldn't get more for the aggravation that ninny caused her.

Quote

Case #2....  dog attack at obedience school.

Confirms my long-held belief that most people are too dumb to own dogs. The defs made utter fools of themselves. I was annoyed at plaintiff and JM trying to force the defs to admit their dog has "some" pit bull in it. When they wouldn't, the breed thing was dropped.  JM, I have to tell you that many, many dogs of all breeds and sizes can and do bite other dogs, because - well, they're dogs. My friend had a Labrador (yes, a sweet Care Bear breed) who would instantly try to KILL any animal who got within range of her jaws and who bit both her owners. My pit bull got chased under the table and beaten up and had her toys stolen by little kittens I fostered. Granted, kittens are horrible and evil, but still.

 

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

 But maybe he can use that 50% to go buy himself some teeth.

I was thinking maybe he's not so good at his job if he can't afford teeth and is willing to appear on TV with that jagged, snaggly, wrecked grill. What a mess that shed was.

[ElleMo]

17 hours ago, califred said:

Case #2....  dog attack at obedience school.  Dog gets away from owner, grabs other dog in class.  Attacking dog owner feels like the bill is way too high and they should only pay half.  Attackee wins full vet bill for 2 surgeries.  

2

I felt a little bad for the defendant.  It's not like she is letting her dog roam the streets.  She is trying to get it trained. Shouldn't the dog school have some sort of insurance for this?

[califred]

I was thinking that too.  I feel like it's kind of like a dog park you are taking a risk.  When we took our then puppy to training I'm pretty sure we signed a paper saying that the School wasn't responsible for any dog stuff.

[SRTouch]

1. Kitten non-payment: cat breeder plaintiff sold defendant a British Blue kitten, but was never paid. We're not talking your typical domestic kitty, but $1500 pedigreed cats. From what I gather, this looks like a well established home breeder  http://blueduchesscats.com (really cute kitten pictures). Problems arose when plaintiff broke her rules about not accepting personal checks. Appears defendant tugged on her heartstrings talking about how much her daughter was looking forward to getting the kitten, so even though she had sent an email the day before saying no personal checks, she relented and accepted the check. I'm not good with accents, but wonder if part of the reason she took the check was that maybe they're both from the same country... and I see on her site that one of her Tom cats was born in Poland. In court we heard several stories about why the check was NSF, nonsense about why PayPal payment was rejected, how there was a cashiers check in the mail. Even heard about how the plaintiff was providing bad customer service. Yeah, plaintiff delivered the kitten on Mother's Day, broke her rule about personal checks so the daughter could keep the kitten, and has terrible customer service. Anyway, for the second time in two days MM has enough of a litigant and has mouthy defendant escorted out. All the way out defendant continues trying to talk over MM. Obviously plaintiff wins, but doesn't get the $3k she's asking for, surprise the pain and suffering portion is thrown out.

More recap later... this case reminded me I better get to the store and get some cat food.

[BubblingKettle]

I think it's strange that the woman in the late-rent case was allowed to wear a Bluetooth in her ear during the case. If people are told to take off their sunglasses (rightly so), then people should also remove wireless speakers from their ears. Who knows - she was such a moron and a liar, maybe she claimed it was a hearing aid (it definitely wasn't).

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

cat breeder plaintiff sold defendant a British Blue kitten,

I think my jaw was hanging open during this. Def was such a shameless, nasty, scamming sociopath I was stunned. She never had any intention of paying for the kitten, yet could stand there smiling as though she'd done something praiseworthy instead of disgusting. Instead of buying a 1500$ cat for her kid, she might want to think about setting an example for her on how not to be a thieving scumbag. People really need to get the memo that even if someone speaks the same language as you do, or comes from the same town or went to same high school does not automatically mean they are beyond reproach and would be great pet owners. I hope that kitten never needs expensive vet care because I doubt it will get it. I looked at the breeder's website and other than the fact that she doesn't (and should) spay/neuter pet quality cats before selling them, she seems reputable.

 

40 minutes ago, CoolWhipLite said:

I think it's strange that the woman in the late-rent case was allowed to wear a Bluetooth in her ear during the case.

Ho hum. Litigants and tenants like her are a dime a dozen. She's of the mindset that thinks all landlords are rich, which should make them realize they shouldn't be hounding her for the money she agreed to pay. Even if he inherited a million dollars why does she assume that means he's supposed to give HER a free ride? She explained to him - it was nearly Christmas and she had to send her mother money and/or buy gifts, bla blah, so he can just pound sand if he expects his rent in the timeframe outlined in the lease she signed. And yeah, she used the basement to store shit after he told her not to, but so what? It was only two teddybears. Where the hell does all this entitlement come from? Maybe the Bluetooth was in case there was national/local/regional emergency at which her presence and services would be mandatory.

The environmental case: It was a pleasure to listen to people who can speak their language correctly, but then we hear that the plaintiff, an educated professional just didn't bother telling the def what his service would cost and thought he needn't bother with a silly old contract either. He was barking up the wrong tree here and left empty-handed.

[Jamoche]

I don't blame the cat breeder for not wanting a cashier's check. Those things can still bounce. They're popular with scammers.

[califred]

The guy in the arsenic case was so boring I felt like I was in a College Geology class.  Since he sent the bill to the bank I don't think defendant ever agreed to pay him.

 

Renter was a piece of work.  But I always pay on the 5th.  He said I could pay late.  Well then you owe the fee.  I will say $150 seems steep. In NC I could only charge 5 % of the rent as a late fee.

Edited December 7, 2016 by califred

[SRTouch]

55 minutes ago, califred said:

Renter was a piece of work.  But I always pay on the 5th.  He said I could pay late.  Well then you owe the fee.  I will say $150 seems steep. In NC I could only charge 5 % of the rent as a late fee.

You're right, sounds high, over 9% by my reckoning. Last time I signed a lease here in Oklahoma there was a $50 late fee after the 3rd, then $10 a day until the 10th. After the 10th they said you'd get a 5 day notice that eviction proceedings would be file. By law, landlord has to accept payment if offered within those 5 days, but after that eviction proceedings can be filed and a landlord doesn't have accept payment. All that is determined when you sign the lease, landlord doesn't have to grant any grace except what is provided when a 5 day notice is posted. By law, if rent is due on the first the landlord could post a 5 day notice at 11:59pm, and the only grace period is the 5 days from the eviction notice. Also, landlord can demand any late rent and/or late fees be paid by money order or cashier check (same thing after a second bad check during the term of the lease, may demand all payments be money order or cashier check.)

[SRTouch]

8 hours ago, ElleMo said:

I felt a little bad for the defendant.  It's not like she is letting her dog roam the streets.  She is trying to get it trained. Shouldn't the dog school have some sort of insurance for this?

I agree, seems like the trainer was at least partially at fault. I mean, a dog is enrolled in your obedience class because the owner's can't control it on lease, shouldn't you spend a little one on one time before bringing into a situation where it could hurt anyone or their animals.

[AZChristian]

The training was only the reason that both dogs were in the same place at the same time; the location wasn't the issue.  The defendant's dog had broken away from the owner, so the owner was legally responsible.  Had she maintained control, the plaintiff's dog would not have been injured.  

Now, if the trainer had said, "Everyone take your dogs off the leashes" first . . . that might have been a different story.  Then the trainer would have been at least partially (if not fully) liable.

[SRTouch]

1. window replacement kerfuffle: Perfect example of why craftsmen/worker don't want the customer around until finished product is ready to be unveiled. Customer in this case was the plaintiff. She hired defendant to replace a window (including the frame). First problem arises when the window doesn't arrive as scheduled - we don't know if the supplier was slow or contractor was just taking his own sweet time. We do know that contractor did a terrible job communicating with the customer, leaving her to wonder why he wasn't completing the job as per the tentative schedule. Which is another problem, customer wanted it done before company on Fourth of July weekend, which wouldn't have been a problem except contractor says she never said anything, so he placed a low priority on her job. Since he didn't know about her time constraints, when the window was a week late being shipped he stuck her little job behind a higher priority big job. Again, communication problems. So, when he finally arrives Friday afternoon on the weekend of the Fourth, she's already about at a boil because she feels he's dragging his feet. Now the fact that she doesn't really understand contruction comes up. As is often the case, once the contractor removes the old window he finds it's a bigger job than he is prepared for - the curse of many a reno, water damage/termite/ rotted wood. Even worse, it starts to drizzle and it's 5pm on a Friday of a holiday weekend. On top of that, apparently customer expected new window to fill the opening - which would actually be a bad thing, as the window needs to expand and contract at a different rate than the wall. So, contractor calls it a day, as he now needs more material and tools to replace the frame. Major kerfuffle, as customer boils over when she hears they won't return until Tuesday. Contractor says he compromised and offered to come back Saturday (which plaintiff's bf sort of confirms, but MM doesn't make him actually say out loud), but at this point customer has turned off her ears and is kicking contractor off the job and threatening to call cops to escort him out. And, that's what loses her the case, she breached the contract by ordering contractor off the site, so her case ends up being dismissed. only other thing of note is that plaintiff claims contractor made some discriminatory comments during the kerfuffle, which of course he denies and really wouldn't change the ruling. Contractor says in hallterview he's still willing to go back and finish the job - yep, after all this time window is still not framed - but customer doesn't want him back.
2. family drama with sister suing sister over $350: (once again a plaintiff has a puzzled look as intro says defendant claims plaintiff sued their mom just before her death) As soon as the case starts I get the feeling I'll be shaking my head over stupid money grabbing siblings before it's over. Preview clip has MM trying to make sense one sister exchanging food stamps as currency, and plaintiff getting the money to loan her sister from a previous lawsuit. Makes me wonder if the arm in a sling is some attempt at another payday - she tells MM it's from a surgery. So, plaintiff says she paid defendant's electric bill with the settlement money. Apparently money and goods go back and forth, some of it accounted for with receipts while some is the exchange of food stamps with no real accounting. Then there's a car rental, where they agree in texts that defendant will pay part ($57), but never did. Now, since defendant never paid her portion, plaintiff unilaterally decided she needs to pay the full amount. Really convoluted amount with sisters helping each out, then when they have a kerfuffle one sister drags the other to court. Defendant's witness must be about to wet herself trying to get MM's attention, but MM refuses to hear from her - getting a laugh from the audience as litigants both say they watch all the time and she's their favorite TV judge. MM goes with the text exchange, and rules defendant owes $175. Oh, and no mention of any lawsuit against mom as per intro. In hallterview the defendant works up a few tears over plaintiff saying their relationship has been ruined.
3. eBay scam case: plaintiff says he sold defendant some cd's on eBay. Says defendant wasn't satisfied they weren't bootleg copies, complained and was received a refund through PayPal, but still has the cd's. Defendant say he shipped them back. Long background story as MM let's plaintiff talk about Black Sabbath, but that really is just audience fluff. To me, the only question is did the defendant return the cds. More yakking from defendant, were these bootleg copies or actual commercial releases... again, immaterial to me - can you tell I'm not a fan and not really interested. Ah, finally MM asks the defendant to prove he mailed the stuff back. Instant waffle dance. He was on vacation, which is why it took so long for him to pay. When he complained and got the refund, it was cheaper for him to return them first class mail rather than the label provided by eBay for return shipping, no he doesn't have proof with him, but he's totally honest, so believe him judge. MM says he's "nailed," she toys with him a little as he tries to dance around his total non-defense, then orders him to pay up. Bottom line: defendant scammer figured no one would sue over $160, so figured he could keep the stuff without paying.

Edited December 8, 2016 by SRTouch
Spelling

[ElleMo]

23 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

 I looked at the breeder's website and other than the fact that she doesn't (and should) spay/neuter pet quality cats before selling them, she seems reputable.

 

A lot of people who buy purebreds don't want then neutered/spayed so they have the option of breeding them in the future.

 I personally do not agree with this I've never paid for pets.  We've gotten them free from neighbors, taken in strays  and from the pound.  Never seen the appeal of getting a (possibly inbred) pet from a breeder.

[AngelaHunter]

25 minutes ago, ElleMo said:

A lot of people who buy purebreds don't want then neutered/spayed so they have the option of breeding them in the future.

Yeah, I know they don't since they want to make a few buck peddling puppies/kittens, and that's exactly what a reputable breeder would not want anyone doing with a pet-quality animal, ever. They make sure their animals are never bred, as they don't want to be in the business of helping to create yet more homeless pets. Shelters are full of purebred animals, produced by backyard breeders and never got sold. "Purebred" has little meaning.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

window replacement kerfuffle: 

I was so with the plaintiff until she started that "racist" stuff. I simply didn't believe her that anyone who is in business and wants clients would start ranting about "you Asians and Hispanics." Bringing that up is not an automatic  win. JM didn't believe her either. That didn't work, so she claims the window was the wrong size. Proof? Well, no - she has none, but just take her word for it.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

family drama with sister suing sister over $350:

So are food stamps now legal tender or usable as barter to pay off debts? I'm sure the people who are actually paying for them (not the plaintiff) would like to know. Only today (yeah I'm slow) I realized that in addition to "It is what it is" another buzzword is "Issue." We hear "I had an ISSUE with the bank" which translates to "I committed bank fraud/passed stolen checks, etc".  "I had an ISSUE with my license/insurance," means my license was revoked for drunk driving, not paying child support, using the car in the commission of a crime, I had warrants outstanding", or other unsavory stuff.  "I had an ISSUE with my landlord" = "I didn't pay my rent and just squatted."

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

eBay scam case: 

Defendant was a complete, utter and perfect asshole and I find it really hard to believe he would stand there in front of millions of people who now know what a lowlife asshole he is, and all over 150$. Another cretin who doesn't know the meaning of the word "shame."