The People's Court - General Discussion

[Jamoche]

3 hours ago, meowmommy said:

AFAIK, Divorce Court has never made a secret that they are reenactments using actors.

I don't think the litigants in TPC are actors, but I would not put it past any of these people to collude and make up a case so they can get on TeeVee and make a little scratch on the side.

It's a shame that the defendant in the first case today has no dishes, thus forcing her to plate her scrambled eggs on top of her head.

These guys made up a story to get on JJ https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/these-guys-made-up-a-fake-case-to-get-on-judge-judy

I can always find them by searching "cat is the spirit animal of the internet" + "judge judy" :)

Quote

No, I think the producer liked the story so much that she wanted to, like, let it happen, but was letting us know that if it was fake—and I think she did believe it to be—that we needed to keep up the front the whole time we were there. 

[Eliza422]

3 hours ago, meowmommy said:

AFAIK, Divorce Court has never made a secret that they are reenactments using actors.

I don't think the litigants in TPC are actors, but I would not put it past any of these people to collude and make up a case so they can get on TeeVee and make a little scratch on the side.

It's a shame that the defendant in the first case today has no dishes, thus forcing her to plate her scrambled eggs on top of her head.

I have no doubt some cases are fake, and I know some folks have written about doing so.

[Jamoche]

1 hour ago, Brattinella said:

Dang!  Anyone got a screen shot?

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

room rental case:

The litigants and their cases today were so sordid (the smelly naked ass on the futon, the plaintiff's screeching and foul language, etc etc) I had to stop watching during the second case so I could go and take a scalding shower and pour more wine.  Plaintiff, desperate for money,  is a complete idiot. Sure, I'd let Kiana - a total stranger -  and her dopey brother and her baby daddy (who are probably both profiting from stripper-mom's welfare checks) and her poor, unfortunate 8-month baby (imagine having that for a mother?) move into my 2-bedroom apt. Dumb, stupid plaintiff (and yeah - pretty sure her "away" hubby is in the slammer) is just very lucky she escaped with all her body parts intact. I'm glad JM picked on the "psychotic white lady" because it seems no one feels it's possible to be bigoted against anyone white. Not sure what plaintiff's race had to do with def's complaint, but anyway -  def. collects welfare while making money stripping or butchering or whatever the hell she does every night. I wish JM, like JJ, would threaten to send the tape to the welfare office. Ugh - this whole thing was just ugly as hell.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

family drama: ah, this is where MM shines, MM just can't handle family fight cases.

"She do." I had to stop halfway through this. JM should get a medal for listening to this unending bullshit garbage. No one has money, no one is working but they need 600$ phones at all times, in case the President urgently needs to get in touch with them. Was daughter wearing a hat or a wig? Or a wig-hat?

I need another drink.

[Brattinella]

Oh, MY!!  I wasn't even prepared for all that, Jamoche!  Thanks!  *eye-bleach now*

[patty1h]

Quote

Was daughter wearing a hat or a wig? Or a wig-hat?

That hair "style" is called a lace front wig, which is glued down all around the wearers hairline.   The plaintiff had heavy makeup, which she probably does to cover the thin mesh that the glue is applied to.  A lot of entertainers (Beyonce, drag queens) use them.  I see this type of lace front wigs sold to the general public -- these large, complicated styles like the plaintiff had on.  I guess if you're gonna go to all that trouble, you want a big elaborate display.

Edited February 3, 2017 by patty1h

[Brattinella]

But, but... glue on the hairline?  GAH!

[SRTouch]

On 1/30/2017 at 4:52 PM, meowmommy said:

I didn't see the particulars of that case today, but I just want to mention I used to have an escape artist for a cat.  His mission in life was to be outside.  They forgot to tell us at the shelter when we were adopting him.  Hard as we tried to keep him in, he used every trick in the book to sneak out every chance he got.

Ah yes, I used to have a Houdini cat, Rocky - named after the character Rocky in the later movies when he was kinda beat up. My Rocky spent years feral, and it took a LONG time before he was anything more than a streak disappearing when he saw me. Being an elder Tom cat, he had been through the wars, beat up and scarred. He tolerated me after a while, and eventually let me pet him. He was never comfortable inside. Unless it was really, REALLY bad weather out, he wanted to be outside, even if it was just sitting on the porch inches away from the rain.

[SRTouch]

1. Ex owes for DUI lawyer: one of my least favorite types of losers. Defendant refuses to admit he was in a relationship with woman he lived with, yeah they dated, yeah they lived together, but oh no, there was no relationship. Tongue tied plaintiff isn't much better. MM practically had to beg her to state her case - maybe stage fright. Anyway, she let the unemployed loser live with her and forked over thousands for his lawyer in 2 separate DUI cases. Pretty lousy case that MM cut short after making defendant look like the loser he apparently is. I won't go as far as she does when she calls his dishonest, because I think in his mind he thinks his work around the house offset the loan, and since he wrote texts admitting he owned money he has convinced himself he really shouldn't have to pay. Course, he testimony was so convoluted it's had to tell. Anyway, he lost.
2. impounded rental car: at least this one is different. Defendant rents a car and drives to NYC, even though he signed a contract saying he couldn't take the car into the City. Apparently, the Rent a Wreck place puts that provision in the contract because they've had lots of customers get parking tickets, and by the time the ticket makes its way to the agency the customer has turned in the car. Sooo, the agency owes 9 grand in back tickets, and when the defendant takes the car to town it gets impounded. The rental folks say the car was worth 4 grand, and they'd have to pay the back tickets to bail it out, so they want the renter to pay the value of the car. Hmmmm, sounds like a "clean hands" type case. The defendant did violate the contract when he parked the car overnight in the Bronx.  But... the reason the car was impounded has nothing to do with the defendant. Nope, it was impounded because the agency owes NYC big time.  Ah well, the case may be simple, but there was a good laugh when MM asks Douglas to read a highlighted portion of the contract and he has to admit he can't without his glasses - wonder if he gets paid more for talking. Another funny, defendant has a counterclaim for what he paid to rent a different car after the first one is impounded - oh yeah, of course, and there the missed work, inconvenience etc. Ah well, the signed contract wins again - even though the rental agency owed the big bucks. MM idn't happy with the agency, but says the contract is legal. Not the inflated value plaintiff came up with, though, instead MM sticks with the KBB value of $2600. 
3. bed bug tenant case: tenant wants 5 grand for stuff that got infested by critters when she rented from defendant. Defendant says no way, she moved in and lived there for six months before she complained of bugs, then broke the lease and moved out. Hmmm, just listening to plaintiff I'm ready to throw out the case. Tenant moves in, says she lived there for months with nary a bite, when she complained landlord brought in an exterminator and paid to put plaintiff and her 4 kids up at a motel the night the place is fumigated. Sounds like landlord was trying to do right, and I find it hard to believe tenant's claim that they spent two months camped out in the living room because of insecticide smell. Then the lady, who says she can't tell the difference between a bedbug and a ladybug, testifies the professional exterminator was just wasting time spraying, because the only way to kill bedbugs that works is with heat. Hey, I believe her when she says the multiple treatments failed, but the thing is she wasn't doing her part cleaning the bedrooms and clothing as she was being instructed. Then she has a ludicrous list of property she claims she threw out because of the bedbugs, including 4 TVS (including a 65"). Show of hands of all those who believe she trashed 5 grand worth of property..... what nobody?

[Watermelon]

I thought I had bedbugs(I didn't. I have a ton of spiders), so I had to do research on killing them.  Clean all your clothes in water/hot dryer, and buy a special mattress cover that they can't escape from.  Camping in a different part of your house is the exact WRONG thing to do, because they'll travel with you and infect that part of your place that might have been free of bedbugs.

[AngelaHunter]

48 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Ex owes for DUI lawyer: one of my least favorite types of losers.

I swear that listening to these two friggin' morons made my IQ drop serveral points and I can't afford that. What gets me, as it always does, is that def who is a total loser with his arrests and lawyers and no job, has women fighting over him. Of course he never committed to plaintiff. Do you know how many other women out there want some of that? He's got to be fair and spread it around.

 

50 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

impounded rental car: at least this one is different.

Yeah, it was different. I loved the very jolly plaintiff. However, I was eating during this and def's toothlessness was bad enough, but that giant cyst or whatever on his neck made me queasy. Never mind renting wrecks (especially when you're too stupid to read the contact or you just don't give a rat's patootie) tooling around NYC and probably getting drunk anrd bunking with your friend so the car gets impounded. Get some damned teeth and have that thing removed. Gross.

54 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

bed bug tenant case:

So, three kids for single mom just weren't enough. She had to squirt out another one just recently. I wonder who is supporting all those offspring? Let me think about it. She had a 65", a 55" and assorted other TVs. Wow. I've worked all my life and done fairly well but only have a 37" and a 19" tv. I must be doing something wrong.

 

56 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

only way to kill bedbugs that works is with heat.

This is true, but as JM states every time, there is no way to tell where the bedbugs came from. She or one of her kids could have brought them home. Landlord had exterminator multiple times and even paid for a hotel for plaintiff and her horde of kids, but that just wasn't enough. Bedbugs do not infest TVs and she didn't leave those big screens behind, but trust her - they too were infested. No lottery winnings today. I guess I overestimate  people, but I really would have bet that the majority of the population knows that ladybugs are orange/red. Obviously I'm wrong.

[Broderbits]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

However, I was eating during this and def's toothlessness was bad enough, but that giant cyst or whatever on his neck made me queasy.

Just a friendly heads-up: do NOT watch HBO's The Young Pope if these things bother you. One of the cardinals in it has a cheek mole that makes me nauseous, and I have a very strong stomach. It's worthy of a horror movie!

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, Watermelon said:

I thought I had bedbugs(I didn't. I have a ton of spiders), so I had to do research on killing them.  Clean all your clothes in water/hot dryer, and buy a special mattress cover that they can't escape from.  Camping in a different part of your house is the exact WRONG thing to do, because they'll travel with you and infect that part of your place that might have been free of bedbugs.

Course we'll never know who actually brought in the bugs. But... if it took 6 months before a bite I don't think they were there waiting for two years to feast on single mom and her 4 kids. Now, much more likely is one of the kids brought them home after a sleep over, who knows, as MM said the bugs aren't talking. Oh, and how would you like to be the next person renting the motel room after the buggy family spent the night (or two nights according to defendant).

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Yeah, it was different. I loved the very jolly plaintiff. However, I was eating during this and def's toothlessness was bad enough, but that giant cyst or whatever on his neck made me queasy. Never mind renting wrecks (especially when you're too stupid to read the contact or you just don't give a rat's patootie) tooling around NYC and probably getting drunk anrd bunking with your friend so the car gets impounded. Get some damned teeth and have that thing removed. Gross.

So, three kids for single mom just weren't enough. She had to squirt out another one just recently. I wonder who is supporting all those offspring? Let me think about it. She had a 65", a 55" and assorted other TVs. Wow. I've worked all my life and done fairly well but only have a 37" and a 19" tv. I must be doing something wrong.

This is true, but as JM states every time, there is no way to tell where the bedbugs came from. She or one of her kids could have brought them home. Landlord had exterminator multiple times and even paid for a hotel for plaintiff and her horde of kids, but that just wasn't enough. Bedbugs do not infest TVs and she didn't leave those big screens behind, but trust her - they too were infested. No lottery winnings today. I guess I overestimate  people, but I really would have bet that the majority of the population knows that ladybugs are orange/red. Obviously I'm wrong.

I thought it was hysterical how the Rent-a-Wreck guy tried to turn MM's relative dissing of his business model into a mini-commercial.  More power to him.  

Ever since the NY media started freaking out about bedbugs, we've seen a rash of people trying to cash in on the bedbug gravy train.  Even if all the things she said were true, I just don't see a cause of action.  This landlady really seemed to have gone out of her way to help the plaintiff and this was her thanks.  

[califred]

Unless something has been invented recently the only way to kill bed bugs is with heat.  The only spray that kills them I was fairly certain was not legal in residences.  

 

Six months would be a long time to not get bit by them.

[ElleMo]

http://patch.com/new-jersey/paramus/watch-giant-target-red-ball-rolls-womans-car-paramus

I want to see this case on PC!

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, califred said:

Unless something has been invented recently the only way to kill bed bugs is with heat.  The only spray that kills them I was fairly certain was not legal in residences.

Yes, AFAIK, only the expensive and distruptive heat works.

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Ever since the NY media started freaking out about bedbugs, we've seen a rash of people trying to cash in on the bedbug gravy train.

Who knows if they really are bedbugs? Landlady asked plaintiff to put one in a bag so it could be determined, but "I wasn't doing that." If that were me, I'd do just about anything to find out and get rid of whatever it was. Maybe it was a harmless carpet beetle. This show makes me eternally grateful that I don't own rental properties. You just never know who you're getting in your premises. Who remembers batshit crazy lady who passed out business cards calling herself a "humanitarian", didn't pay her rent and left buckets of pee for the landlord when she finally got out?

ETA:

Quote

I want to see this case on PC!

It very well could be! I'd love to see it too. I've never seen those balls but they don't look very secure.

Edited February 4, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[meowmommy]

12 minutes ago, ElleMo said:

http://patch.com/new-jersey/paramus/watch-giant-target-red-ball-rolls-womans-car-paramus

I want to see this case on PC!

Took three tries on three different browsers for the damn video to run, but looking at it, whoever designed the parking lot for those balls to be placed in that location ought to have their head examined.  The article says the pickup driver is wanted for hit and run, but honestly they might not even have realized the ball was there or that they hit it.  OTOH, is it different from a case where the driver hits a telephone pole which then falls on another car?  Would anyone say it was the phone company's fault?

So it would be an interesting case, but I seriously doubt Target would want any more publicity.

[AKA...CJ86]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Who remembers batshit crazy lady who passed out business cards calling herself a "humanitarian", didn't pay her rent and left buckets of pee for the landlord when she finally got out?

This episode was on my mind with last week's episode of the guy dumping his ex-roomie's mother's(?) ashes down a toilet... again, that case needed an update... last week.

ETA:

Was yesterday the case of the roomie with the glow in the dark mane?  Plaintiff was definitely kooky.  Not defending the defendant of the neon coif, but plaintiff seemed to be more of the instigating type over problem solving.  She also just seemed really into her storytelling and holding up the butt print... to me, plaintiff and defendant were both crazy and deserved each other...

It's a slow and boring PC day for me when the cases have me thinking of last yesterday's or last week's episodes...

Edited February 4, 2017 by CyberJawa1986
Edits and stuff yo'

[Bazinga]

Hated bedbug tenant and cut-rate Blac China, neon haired, stripper/butcher. 

It was passed over quickly, but bedbug lady cried poverty enough to get the exterminator to give her $50 out of his pocket to clean and heat dry all of her clothes.  Let's examine that.  She bitched enough to get a professional, who didn't know her, to give her money to deal with her problem.  Then when asked if she washed the clothes?, she mumbled yes, she already had a washer and dryer.  So she didn't have to pay anything, what was she begging the exterminator for money for?  Some people are always scammers and users.  And, I don't think she was washing her clothes to rid them of the bedbugs as she was supposed to.  She was washing to remove the smell.  She also never isolated her clothes as she needed to.  That was why the bbs kept returning.  I also hated that, even after MM kept telling her she was wrong and that the defendant didn't do anything wrong or owe her anything, she was insistent that she was right and kept repeating, in a monotone manner, her feeling about the situation.  Everything is someone else's fault and she deserves to get paid.  Last, she went from not knowing what a bedbug even looked like to being the expert witness on bedbugs.  Just ugh.

Now for neon hair.  Knew she thought she was all that from the second she walked in the courtroom.  Just an awful person who thought her disgusting behavior was justified.  Never discussed was her thinking, if she wanted to leave the apartment, she gets to stay free for a week per the rental agent.  That doesn't make sense to you?  What bugged me with this case, almost as much as the defendant herself, was that JM was very permissive and friendly with the defendant.  Letting her just speak and ask questions and treating her like she was enchanting and cute.  Awful girl who intended from the outset to use the plaintiff for as much as she could.  She was not cute, JM.  Some litigants aren't allowed to say anything and some are unfairly indulged.  Hate that some people's personalities allow them to be treated better then they deserve/others.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Bazinga

[AZChristian]

10 hours ago, Bazinga said:

It was passed over quickly, but bedbug lady cried poverty enough to get the exterminator to give her $50 out of his pocket to clean and heat dry all of her clothes.  Let's examine that.  She bitched enough to get a professional, who didn't know her, to give her money to deal with her problem.  Then when asked if she washed the clothes?, she mumbled yes, she already had a washer and dryer.  So she didn't have to pay anything, what was she begging the exterminator for money for?  Some people are always scammers and users. 

And she had FOUR TVs, including a 65-inch and a 52-inch.  If you don't have $50 to heat dry your clothes for your children's well-being, how do you have the money for a 65-inch TV.

Oh, yeah.  She must have got her taxes back.

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, AZChristian said:

 If you don't have $50 to heat dry your clothes for your children's well-being, how do you have the money for a 65-inch TV.

And to feel you're in a position to have another baby last year, when you don't have 50$? Birth control is a lot cheaper than babies, if someone wants to "mess around" with an absentee man. Or maybe he's not absentee. Maybe he lives there too on the QT.

 

14 hours ago, Bazinga said:

What bugged me with this case, almost as much as the defendant herself, was that JM was very permissive and friendly with the defendant.  Letting her just speak and ask questions and treating her like she was enchanting and cute.

 I hate when she does that. The worst time was with that bunch of silly college girls who trashed someone's rental property and JM acted as though that was cute and charming too. It most definitely is not.

 

15 hours ago, CyberJawa1986 said:

Plaintiff was definitely kooky.  Not defending the defendant of the neon coif, but plaintiff seemed to be more of the instigating type over problem solving.

She was a nut, whose screaming and cursing not only didn't solve anything, but made the situation worse, since she knew very well just who she was dealing with. I would have had that pillow in a sealed plastic bag. God knows what was imparted to it with def's nasty ass grinding into it. Revolting.

[wallysmommy]

There was nothing cute or charming about neon-haired stripper girl.  But then, I'm not her target audience.  Next time we see her, it will be because some dude with a midlife crisis is "dating" her and "gives" her a bunch of money.  "It was a loan so she could finish her doctorate."  "No, we weren't dating, but it was a gift."

[Jamoche]

12 hours ago, AZChristian said:

And she had FOUR TVs, including a 65-inch and a 52-inch.  If you don't have $50 to heat dry your clothes for your children's well-being, how do you have the money for a 65-inch TV.

Oh, yeah.  She must have got her taxes back.

I saw a news article claiming that the TV business isn't getting its usual pre-Super Bowl boost because the IRS is slow on sending out tax refunds...

Edited February 5, 2017 by Jamoche

[AngelaHunter]

14 hours ago, wallysmommy said:

 Next time we see her, it will be because some dude with a midlife crisis is "dating" her and "gives" her a bunch of money.  "It was a loan so she could finish her doctorate."  

Hah - yet another dirty old man with liver-spotted hands and a pocketful of viagra claiming to be a philanthropist and a "nice person" no doubt. Can't wait for that case.

[momtoall]

11 hours ago, Jamoche said:

I saw a news article claiming that the TV business isn't getting its usual pre-Super Bowl boost because the IRS is slow on sending out tax refunds...

I rather doubt this .... The Super Bowl is nearly always the first Sunday in February (or the last Sunday in January?), I don't recall the IRS sending checks out that soon, ever!! 

Edited February 5, 2017 by momtoall

[ElleMo]

2 hours ago, momtoall said:

I rather doubt this .... The Super Bowl is nearly always the first Sunday in February (or the last Sunday in January?), I don't recall the IRS sending checks out that soon, ever!! 

Plus lots of people who rely on their tax refund  also need everything right away.  So if they are able to get their tax stuff together so early, they go to a tax place and get a rapid refund (for a fee of course) so they don't have to wait for the govt to pay

[AZChristian]

We filed online with TurboTax last Monday.  The State refund should be here tomorrow (one week later), and the Federal has been approved, and we should have it in another week.

For those who don't work or have interest-earning savings - and don't have to wait for W2s and/or 1099s, it's possible to have the refund this early.  And, as ElleMo indicated, there's always Rapid Refund.  And let's face it . . . a lot of the folks we see on court shows don't have to wait for those forms.  

[SRTouch]

1. Big time tow case: another of those "he towed me illegally" cases, but this time it didn't cost, much. Plaintiff is suing for $186. Says he went to the bank, parked in the bank's lot, and was towed while he was in the bank. Course, defendant says different. According to him guy parked in the bank's lot, left, then when he saw his car towed he went in and got a receipt in the bank. Who knows, tow company may be in the right, but didn't bother to bring anything from the witness they say saw guy leave the property. Lot of wishy washy testimony, "we have pictures/video of plaintiff leaving property - oh wait no it's just him confronting tow driver". Never good to offer proof of your position and then not have it when the judge asks for it - guess it's better than passing up evidence hoping the judge won't look at/read it and it turns out to support the other side. Ah, but this time it goes the other way. Plaintiff sounded reasonable and passed up pictures of the bank entrance, and I was ready to go for him over fumbling tow rep. Then defendant gets it together and explains his pictures and video better. To top it off, plaintiff's picture comes back to haunt him as it reinforces defendant's case. Wonder what type of guy sues over $186 tow charge? It's the kind who stands at the bench when the judge calls him up for a closer look of defendant's pix/video and interrupts her as she points out the inconsistencies in his story. As usual, tow company wins.
2. 'Nother ? eyeglass case - with a twist: plaintiff ordered pair of prescription glasses, then had eye surgery and canceled the order because the prescription changed. He's in court because the defendant won't refund the $240 deposit. He has a nice story - I just don't buy it. Says he ordered glasses at a different store, went back after a week to cancel and was given a refund - but of course that's just flapping gums because no copy of the refund. Then he goes to defendant, sees the on site eye doc. After the consult, he decides to go ahead with cataract surgery, like the first doc suggested, but doesn't cancel the order for glasses for 5 days. After surgery his prescription changes, so he no longer needs the glasses he ordered from defendant. Gotta say I agree, prescription glasses are not cheap, pretty much are always special order, so unless the shop messes up the order you can't get your money back after you sign the contract. Sure sounds like MM is ready to dismiss the case before even hearing from defendant. Ah well, that's not how it works, so we hear from defendant anyway. She has to give defendant a hard time about something, so gives him a talking to about the low ink and wrong date on the register tape - not that it means much since he says that receipt is from the register and plaintiff also received an itemized copy of the order. Ah, another time where litigant's evidence might end up biting him in the end. According to store policy, as shown by defendant, the plaintiff only had to pay 30-50% of total when he made the order, and that much is nonrefundable. Well, here plaintiff paid $240 of the total $258 - so why, MM asks, should he be out the whole amount he paid. Nother twist in this case. Defendant offered to give store credit for the full $240 (guy still needs glasses, just different prescription). Plaintiff tries to argue he never agreed to store credit, but his own statement contradicts him, and he finally admits that, yes, he does still need glasses. He argues just reading glssses, defendant says bifocals. Dude, no doubt you're seeing much better after the surgery, but if you need bifocals it's not just reading glasses you need - and bifocals ain't cheap. Now, after being sued, defendant is having second thoughts since plaintiff sued him after agreeing not to. Now plaintiff is doing his best to talk MM out of ordering defendant to make the new glasses with the store credit, despite being told it's either that or nothing. Defendant finally is talked in to abiding by the settlement, but stubborn plaintiff insists he wants his money back. Finally, he talks his way out of new glasses, and MM dismisses case. 
3. dog bite case: plaintiff says he was bitten by defendant's dog and ended up with stitches, so wants 5 grand for medical, pain and suffering, and misc other crapola. Defendant argues plaintiff slipped and fell, and was not even bitten - it's all lies, and he ended up having his dogs taken because of plaintiff meany. Ah, typical of many dog owners, blaming the attackee instead of controlling their pups. Here defendant admits his dogs rushed at plaintiff - but says they were only barking, not biting, and plaintiff was injured when he panicked and fell. Anybody else think he just lost his case. Dude, really doesn't matter if they bite or not, they were out of your control and he incurred medical expenses because of it. Now, pain and suffering - I kind of doubt 6 stitches entitle you to thousands in pain and suffering unless there's some therapy or lasting scars. Course, maybe having two rot/pit mixes charge you might make you need therapy. As a dog lover, a big part of me wants to say plaintiff probably wouldn't have been attacked if he had acted differently. But, and a BIG BUT, when you have large dogs capable of causing major damage, you need to train and maintain control. This is a case I wish had stayed in small claims. Not only because animal cases almost always make me want to smack the owner upside their head, but because this dumb yahoo is still arguing he and his dogs did nothing wrong. Mean old animal control and town officials put his dogs in quarantine and ordered they be leashed and muzzled when outside, so he had to re-home them. Yep, another pet owner who should be declared incompetent and worthy of owning nothing more advanced than a pet rock. Only question is how much to award. Had this stayed in small claims, I'd say sock it to defendant - make it hurt enough so that maybe he'll learn. But, this is court TV, he's not going to be out anything - and I don't buy whiney single dad can't cook or take care of daughter and had to pay someone to mow the yard. That's a nasty looking wound, though, so I agree with the 3 grand award.

[meowmommy]

The second and third cases resounded with me.

I ordered glasses last year and when they arrived, I could not see through them.  I went back three times to have them corrected and I still can't use the glasses.  Not only did they not refund my money, but they had the nerve to call me a year after the order to remind me it was time to come back.

I was out in my driveway today with my cat and the yappy fucking rat dog next door would not shut up.  It barks continuously whenever it sees me, which is any time I am in my yard or my driveway.  I found myself wondering if dogs ever get laryngitis.  At least this dog is behind a fence.  Unlike all the other dogs that run loose in this goddamn neighborhood to the point where I don't feel safe taking a walk.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

But, this is court TV, he's not going to be out anything - and I don't buy whiney single dad can't cook or take care of daughter and had to pay someone to mow the yard. That's a nasty looking wound, though, so I agree with the 3 grand award.

I'm a single mother and I wanted to smack those crocodile tears off his face.   I agree about the wound and the payment but not because of his grandstanding.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Big time tow case: 

I think I dislike litigants like Mr.Hoffman more than I do the loud, ignorant lowlifes looking to get something for nothing. He spoke well and seemed to be a professional of some sort (maybe a lawyer - ha!) and yet here he was, lying and trying to scam 186$ for a tow he well deserved and having half the planet know what a slimy little cheat/shyster (he should make friends with Levin) he is. It really seems no one has one iota of shame anymore.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

 plaintiff ordered pair of prescription glasses, then had eye surgery and canceled the order because the prescription changed.

Even with his thick skull, untruthfulness ("I never need glasses. Oh, well, yes - I need them to read so it was a lie when I said I didn't.") and his "I goes" and "Seventeenf" I still didn't find him as galling as I did Mr.Hoffman. Is this the first litigant who preferred to walk away with absolutely nothing rather than something? Puzzling indeed.

[Bazinga]

Wish someone had pointed out to 'Mr. I don't need glasses' that he walked in to the courtroom holding a pair of glasses.

First plaintiff was a straight-up liar.  Second was intentionally ignorant.  Third was blind, a liar and ignorant.  What a day.  Hated all three.  Try to live your life and/or run a business and these are the nuisances you have to deal with.  Nobody can just say, my fault, I have to suck it up (cases 1 & 2)/I owe you (case 3). No, have to bring lawsuits to recover money they don't deserve or plaintiff has to bring suit to get payment he does deserve.

Dislike when plaintiffs bring up all the things defendant did wrong (he didn't give me a real receipt in today's case, he wasn't licensed, didn't bring the right tools, etc.) to bolster their case.  All the stuff that didn't bother them one iota when they had the initial interaction but want to bring up now to make the defendant look bad.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

1 minute ago, Bazinga said:

Dislike when plaintiffs bring up all the things defendant did wrong (he didn't give me a real receipt in today's case, he wasn't licensed, didn't bring the right tools, etc.) to bolster their case

Yes! I love when they hire someone under the table for cash, buy a shitty car from CL, or rent a place and then bitch in court that he wasn't licensed, the apartment didn't have a CO or the car is a POS, all things they cared nothing about when they thought they were getting a really good deal. There really are people who deserve to be ripped off.

[DoctorK]

Quote

the first litigant who preferred to walk away with absolutely nothing rather than something? Puzzling indeed.

I often get the impression that some of the litigants we see are not necessarily stupid, they are just too ignorant to operate in this world, failing to understand the most rudimentary elements of the social contract. This guy, though, I really believe was too stupid to understand his options.  Genuine stupidity is something to feel sad about but not really their fault. Willful ignorance, on the other hand, should not get a pass.

[Jamoche]

4 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I often get the impression that some of the litigants we see are not necessarily stupid, they are just too ignorant to operate in this world, failing to understand the most rudimentary elements of the social contract. This guy, though, I really believe was too stupid to understand his options.  Genuine stupidity is something to feel sad about but not really their fault. Willful ignorance, on the other hand, should not get a pass.

Yeah, one of the court shows had a defendant once whose brain had obviously seen better days - he'd been successful enough to have retired from a decent job, but now things simply went "whoosh". People like that I feel sorry for. People who have functional brains but choose not to use them because there's always somebody willing to give them "gifts" drive me nuts.

[AngelaHunter]

9 hours ago, DoctorK said:

This guy, though, I really believe was too stupid to understand his options.

I think that's true, because his options couldn't have been clearer and JM gave them to him in the simplest words she could formulate. A five year old could understand, "Either you get nothing, or you take the store credit."

OTOH, he could be like many litigants we see. They have a story and point of view rehearsed and cemented in their heads to the point that they cannot process anything outside of it.  We see that a lot, both here and on JJ:

JM/JJ: "What time did you get to his house that day?"
Lit: "Your honour, I do not feel I owe him the money, because..."

[SRTouch]

1. friends fight over furniture: plaintiff suing friend for non payment after she says she sold her used furniture for $700. Really no evidence, unless you count an affidavit from a neighbor who is supposedly feuding with defendant's hubby. I was less than impressed with either side, but then I was fixing lunch so maybe missed something. Sounded like the judge didn't believe anybody, but especially didn't like the fact that defendant apparently supports herself from a series of car accident scams. Thing was, defendant was the one who brought up her 5 accidents since 2004. Hmmm, let's see, her 5, hubby supposedly currently involved in case with plaintiff's affidavit witness, then she was on the scene to give someone involved in another accident her lawyer's name and then gave the lawyer pictures and a statement to help in that case. Should have just admitted she was promised a little something if that witnessed case is successful, because I doubt anyone believes she did it out of the goodness of her heart. MM awards the plaintiff the $700 on no evidence I heard.
2. Ex's fighting for car custody: ah, Nother almost married case. When times were good the couple bought a car, in gf's name because of his lousy credit. Why, of course she was willing to sign a loan on a $26,000 new car, after all they enjoyed two years of dating bliss. A month after taking out the loan, they break up. Now, after the breakup, she has the car, and he wants the money he put into it back, saying he paid the downpayment of $3500. Gf doesn't dispute he put down the downpayment, but says she's stuck with the loan and insurance payments because bf lost his job - but hey, she has the car. She doesn't want or need the car, but isn't just giving it to him and footing the bills. Oh, just need to mention special snowflake girly brought mommy to court with her, and when it was time to repo the car she sent daddy and his cop friend to get it. As soon as they buy the car they start fighting over it. Understandably, she's upset that he's driving the brand new car, racking up lots of mileage on the car in her name, and she's driving an 8 year old suburban, she has second thoughts about the deal, kerfuffle ensues, they breakup. Ah, a big sticking point is she ends up demanding the car before he even misses a single payment. Ok, I have no doubt he would have failed to make the payments, after all he lost his job two weeks later, and he has lousy credit for a reason, but she jumped the gun sending daddy before the first payment was due. Plaintiff gets back the deposit, and hopefully gf, single momma with 3 (?) kids learned a lesson.
3. inept window blind install: plaintiff paid defendant to install window shades, only to have a shade fall on his wife and dog, injuring maltese pup, who needed surgery. Defendant argues guy is a hothead who probably yanked on the shade and pulled it off the wall (this sentence strictly from intro - nothing like this said in court). Problem is, he doesn't know why shade fell - just that it shouldn't have if properly installed. Initially defendant said he'd cover the vet bills, but he got upset when he received a demand letter asking $4400 for a $849 vet bill - uh, no, sounds like he saw that and replied "sue me" - and now they're in court. Seems plaintiff got a lawyer involved (and it sounds like MM knows the lawyer and is less than impressed with his rep). At one point, when defendant thought the vet bill total was $850, he offered to settle for $1500, but once the lawyer tried to jack up the bill he said forget it. In the end, MM awards plaintiff the vet bills and cost of shade - $2200.

[AKA...CJ86]

Case Number One... the former friends... Kinda felt Plaintiff was "auditioning."

Case Number Two... I'm single, and thirty, so maybe naive to the situation.  When did being a couple mean commingling your financials with someone else?  I don't get it, why take risks?

Didn't catch case number three... I was making lunch plus usually the third case is a snoozer. 

[meowmommy]

What the hell does whether or not someone chases ambulances have to do with whether she agreed to buy dining room furniture?  And what difference does it make why they're not friends?  It's irrelevant to the case.  Either they had an agreement to sell it or not.  I'm so sick of filler just for the 'entertainment' value.  If they can't find enough for a 20 minute case (before commercials and what's coming up and what's already been said and Levin), then switch to the JJ format of two cases in half an hour.  

And I don't know anyone who would spend $700 for used furniture anyway.  They were both lowlifes and they should have been sent away with nothing.

Second case, again, why is it MM's business why they broke up and who broke up with whom and birth control pills?  That has nothing to do with the legalities involved.  And then the plaintiff owes nothing for the time he had use of the car?  And while it is true that loan payments go primarily to interest first and principal later, the reason the GF is upside down on the loan is less due to the front-loaded interest and more due to the instant depreciation the minute the car drives off the lot.  If you sell your car and pay off your loan really early (and they only bought this car last May), you won't take a huge hit for interest because you won't accrue it, but you will likely lose money due to the fact that you can't sell it for anything even close to the purchase price.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

friends fight over furniture: 

I swear judges like JM have the patience of a saint to listen to this garbled nonsense. Def. - another one with her cross prominently displayed on her chest -  seems to make a living with lawsuits, or something like that and the plaintiff's witness ("Yes I have a witness but he's not here") is a liar because def's husband says he cut him. I didn't even want to know. So def had no furniture, so plaintiff gave her furniture for free but then def suddenly went and a got a whole bunch of furniture so put plaintiff's furn. outside or gave it away or sold it or who the hell cares?

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Ex's fighting for car custody: 

Ms. Wineberger is 28 and has three children but needs her mommy to come to court with her. She seems kinda dumb, but at least she finally discovered birth control, so had no kids with the plaintiff, a mature man with no credit who says Ms. W "talked him into" buying a very expensive brand-new car. He just couldn't say no. So, how big was the gun she held to his tiny little head? Another example of the entitled generation who feels they should have everything they want right now.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

inept window blind install:

Could have been settled easily, if plaintiff hadn't seen some jackpot waiting for him, as he demanded money for everything short of aroma therapy for his doggie. Def certainly owed for the vet bill (poor doggie!) which it seems he agreed to,  but all the rest is probably nonsense the lawyer told greedy plaintiff to add in.

Quote

Second case, again, why is it MM's business why they broke up and who broke up with whom and birth control pills?

I think we've long since established that JM is just a wee bit nosy, but as for who broke up with whom - that could go towards deciding who has an axe to grind or a motive to sue.

Edited February 7, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Could have been settled easily, if plaintiff hadn't seen some jackpot waiting for him, as he demanded money for everything short of aroma therapy for his doggie. Def certainly owed for the vet bill (poor doggie!) which it seems he agreed to,  but all the rest is probably nonsense the lawyer told greedy plaintiff to add in.

One of the most reasonable defendants we've seen in a long time.  It's too bad he's going to be saddled with the court costs.  I was trying to figure out why the greedy plaintiff went to a lawyer (and someone whose shitty reputation has made it to MM!) but then ended up in small claims court.  The lawyer must have only been willing to write the nasty, unfounded demand letter.  Wonder how much that cost the plaintiff.  A lot, I hope.

[speac]

4 hours ago, meowmommy said:

What the hell does whether or not someone chases ambulances have to do with whether she agreed to buy dining room furniture?  And what difference does it make why they're not friends?  It's irrelevant to the case.  Either they had an agreement to sell it or not.  I'm so sick of filler just for the 'entertainment' value.  If they can't find enough for a 20 minute case (before commercials and what's coming up and what's already been said and Levin), then switch to the JJ format of two cases in half an hour.  

And I don't know anyone who would spend $700 for used furniture anyway.  They were both lowlifes and they should have been sent away with nothing.

Second case, again, why is it MM's business why they broke up and who broke up with whom and birth control pills?  That has nothing to do with the legalities involved.  And then the plaintiff owes nothing for the time he had use of the car?  And while it is true that loan payments go primarily to interest first and principal later, the reason the GF is upside down on the loan is less due to the front-loaded interest and more due to the instant depreciation the minute the car drives off the lot.  If you sell your car and pay off your loan really early (and they only bought this car last May), you won't take a huge hit for interest because you won't accrue it, but you will likely lose money due to the fact that you can't sell it for anything even close to the purchase price.

Because since it was a case with no evidence it relied totally on the credibility of the two women.

[meowmommy]

18 minutes ago, speac said:

Because since it was a case with no evidence it relied totally on the credibility of the two women.

It's supposed to rely on the ability of the plaintiff to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence.  

[AngelaHunter]

48 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

It's supposed to rely on the ability of the plaintiff to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence.

But if there's no evidence - except a witness who wasn't there - then the judge has to decide what makes more sense and seems more likely. In this case, I thought she felt the plaintiff wasn't the type to just give away rooms of furniture (I've certainly never done that and probably never will) and that def had agreed to pay for it. 700$ is an odd figure - most people might say 500 or 1,000 so I guess that made it more believable. Both of them were unlikeable, but def seemed less believable.

[meowmommy]

49 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

But if there's no evidence - except a witness who wasn't there - then the judge has to decide what makes more sense and seems more likely. 

If there's no evidence, then the case should be thrown out.  The plaintiff has to come in with more, as MM loves to say, than just her flapping gums.  If, on the other hand, there is conflicting evidence, then it would be on the judge to sort through it and make judgments based on logic and credibility.  "Did too!"  "Did not!"  doesn't equal a win for Did Too.

[AngelaHunter]

59 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

"Did too!"  "Did not!"  doesn't equal a win for Did Too.

I guess JM saw or heard something in this mess of a case that swayed her. I could never have decided but I guess that's why she's wearing the black dress and I'm not. XD

[ElleMo]

14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I guess JM saw or heard something in this mess of a case that swayed her. I could never have decided but I guess that's why she's wearing the black dress and I'm not. XD

 

Yeah, I didn't see it anything that swayed me either way. I thought perhaps she asked people for money, couldn't get so gave it away. Then had second thoughts and wanted money for it. It is not as easy as you think to sell used furniture - especially since you usually need it out by a certain time to make way for new furniture or to move. You have to pay to get it carted away so you give it away instead. 

We couldn't find anyone to buy my Dad's furniture when he moved into a smaller home so his very beautiful bedroom  set and a couch that was only 8 years old and rarely used was given away to a friend of a friend. (people on Craigslist, BTW, can be very unreliable customers)  All his kids had their own furniture.  If only he had moved a few years earlier, I could have furnished my home.  But I couldn't get rid of the bedroom set my in-laws gave us to make way for my parent's old set.

Edited February 8, 2017 by ElleMo

[Zahdii]

Quote

.

I won't buy used upholstered furniture.  I don't know what's happened to it before I got it.  I'm talking about pee, poop, bleeding, spilled drinks, fleas, bedbugs...

I say this as someone whose husband had relatives "help out" by offering us stuff even years after we got together and had a fully furnished house.  My husband didn't want to take on all their crap, but all they had to say was "Well, if you won't take it, we'll just haul it to the dump!"  He never really understood why that was actually an insult.  We hauled a lot of other people's crap to the dump for them.

[SRTouch]

1. bad used car deal: Yet another car buyer who buys a $700 16yo hunk of junk, then turns around and sues the seller because it's junk. Only reason I even watched was to see how plaintiff figures she's entitled to $7,000 after paying $700 (yep, max in their jurisdiction is 7 grand instead of the usual 5). Plaintiff is a piece of work. She buys a car for $700, that won't start. Somehow she claims the new battery that was purchased to get the car started was rolled into the purchase price - uh no, that money didn't go in defendant's pocket, it went to AAA or whoever supplied the battery and got whoopty started. Then, like so many car buyers, after purchasing the car decides it's time to take it to a mechanic for an inspection. Anyway, even this inspection isn't to check out the car, but a requirement to register the car in their state - and isn't a regular failed state inspection, but a stateen saying it may not pass inspection. Plaintiff calls and complains to defendant when she gets the thumbs down from the mechanic. She calls defendant wanting her money back and leaves car at mechanics shop. Oh, and now we find out this wasn't meant to be a regular car purchase, plaintiff was homeless and was buying car to sleep in. MM presses her on why she's homeless, partly because, as we all know, she likes knowing litigants' business even when it has nothing to do with case. This time there's actually a reason for her nominees - seems part of her claim is for money spent to board her 13 animals. Not sure how that could be construed to be the fault of defendant no matter how bad the car was. Oh well, 8 of the critters were geckos, so they don't take much room (but hey, wouldn't proper temperature be vital for reptiles). Anyway, plaintiff doesn't want to talk about why she's suing for a ridiculous amount. Defendant isn't exactly coming across very well in text messages when MM starts digging through her phone. When plaintiff calls and tells her the junker won't pass, instead of offering back the money she texted that she knows somewhere that will pass the pos. Even in an as-is sale, the implied warranty is that a car can be registered and driven safely. I think deal should be unwound - but forget money for everything else that is wrong in plaintiff's life. I'm done with this one, and fast forward. When I start watching turns out plaintiff ended up with nothing, not even the $700 she paid for the car - not worth going back to hear why. Was kind of funny watching her storm by Doug yelling "NO COMMENT!" 
2. nonrefundable furniture sale:  plaintiff was buying defendant's house, and paid 2 grand to keep the furniture. House sale fell through, and he says she won't return the money he paid for the furniture. Whoa, I must be in a bad mood for some reason. Can't stand listening to defendant, and can barely understand plaintiff with his accent.  Fast forward through another one - defendant lost according to hallterview after a short case (made even shorter through the magic of remote control).
3. Internet dating loan case: meet on the internet, date a little while, loan dude (or dudette) money, then be surprised when they forget to pay you back after the breakup. Yep, bad mood today - I just tell the girl on the screen to get some self respect and give up before dufus makes his way into courtroom.

[ElleMo]

1 minute ago, Zahdii said:

I won't buy used upholstered furniture.  I don't know what's happened to it before I got it.  I'm talking about pee, poop, bleeding, spilled drinks, fleas, bedbugs...

I say this as someone whose husband had relatives "help out" by offering us stuff even years after we got together and had a fully furnished house.  My husband didn't want to take on all their crap, but all they had to say was "Well, if you won't take it, we'll just haul it to the dump!"  He never really understood why that was actually an insult.  We hauled a lot of other people's crap to the dump for them.

 

Oh, I completely agree.  I've gotten used bookcases, desks, tables, etc. but never anything upholstered. If they had gotten pee'd on, the stain would be pretty obvious.  I even got a used crib and bed frame/headboard, but bought new mattresses. I would have taken my dad's couch, but that was only because I knew the history.

Back in my college days, we did get a couch from a church sale every year.  We never had a way to transport it home or place to store it over the summer, so at the end of the spring semester, we always either threw it out or gave it to someone staying over the summer.  The summer I stayed on campus, I saw the church trucks come around campus picking up stuff.  Turns out that they get stuff from the school in May and sell it back to students the next semester.  Now I shudder to think what those couches had on them.  One owner is bad enough but multiple college student owners?  Yikes! Thankfully I was blissfully unaware at the time.