The People's Court - General Discussion

[califred]

Yes both my dh, our kids and I have other numbers on our ID card but medical/Tricare insists they can't switch over. 

[SRTouch]

1. dog bite case (should have skipped it): plaintiff says she, her hubby, and their little dog were walking on the street after a trip to the store. As they approached defendant's house, her son, about 10-11yo, dropped the leash to their dog, which slipped through a gap in defendant's fence to charge plaintiff's group. (Not sure why, but defendant is in court all by her lonesome - didn't bring along the son as a witness. Also, she's got a co-defendant, supposedly the attacking dog's owner, who for whatever reason is letting her represent her in court - possible conflict of interest, here?) Plaintiff says there were actually three terrier type dogs, two white and 1 dark, that slipped through the fence to come after her tiny fluff-ball dog, but it was the dark one that bit hubby. Oh, and the dark one was the one that belongs to missing defendant and whose leash son dropped and is owned by missing defendant. Well, case is only 5 minutes old, but when I see plaintiff's pictures I get disgusted with the case and think about hitting fast forward. Come on, dog supposedly bit through his shoe, but plaintiffs didn't bother to bring in the shoe - or even a show picture. Instead they have a picture of his foot, and MM can't find any wound in the picture - and these people are asking for thousands in damages. Ah, medical records, surely the doctor wrote about the dog bite - and wouldn't there be a mandatory report made by the doctor to animal control so the vaccination record could be verified or the dog quarantined. Nope, just a bill for a tetanus shot. Defendant hasn't said a word and I agree with her claim in the intro that this whole case is greedy plaintiffs after lawsuit money. Not that defendant should be totally off the hook. Terriers are great, feisty pets, but originally bred as hunters and vermin control dogs and are often not tolerate of other animals,  so defendant needs a better fence. Poor little fluffy would not have stood much of a chance if the three terriers had gotten to her/him. As we go to break defendant whines that a report was made to animal control, and the dogs were taken and she doesn't know what happened to them. WTF, her dogs were taken and she never followed up to even find out what happened? MM asks and she says she doesn't even know if the were put down - ah what a lesson for her son! Nah, don't believe it! Now, I could believe animal control telling her her fence was inadequate and she needs to replace/repair it or voluntarily relinquish the dogs... or be fined. I've heard enough, and hit the button to zip through the rest. Disgusted with money grabbing plaintiffs, but REALLY  disgusted with defendant who let her dogs run wild (if they did, in fact, run wild) and then couldn't even make a phone call to see if her dogs were put up for adoption or put to sleep.
2. tax dispute: plaintiff claims he worked to lower defendant's property tax rate, successfully lowered his future bills, but defendant won't pay his bill for the services. Defendant says he's not going to pay until the next bill arrives, so he can see his taxes have actually be lowered. Hmmm, sounds like a simple contract case. Contract says plaintiff gets a percentage of whatever reduction his company succeeds in reducing the appraised value, so find out if they lowered the appraisal. Surprise surprise, plaintiff came to court showing the reduction, so pay the man. Ah, still in a bad mood after the first case to make sense of defendant's accented English, so I take Frank-n-kitty (Sillycat busy napping so wouldn't come let me put on his harness) out to enjoy a little sunshine.
3. used car deal gone bad:  going by intro (always an iffy proposition) a he said/he said case with widely different versions of the truth. Plaintiff claims he gave money to defendant to buy a car for him at auction, but still doesn't have title after a year. Defendant says dude is a friend of a friend who he let use his name to bid on a car, dude did the deal on his own, so title kerfuffle is not his problem. We go to break before the case starts, and as we go MM is making defendant sound like a fool - d (with lots of animation and looking around), "I wasn't really looking at him as a customer..." MM "if you were charging him for your services how was he not a customer?" If I understand defendant right, he takes much better care of complete strangers who are his customers than he does a friend of a friend who isn't really a customer. Don't know if plaintiff is lying or just naive, but defendant is full of it. Even defendant's explanation of how he would fix the problem is bogus. Guess he was so caught up in running his mouth he forgot where he was and who he was talking to. I'm with MM, there must be a legal remdy, and declaring it abandoned property and putting a Lein on it sounds like fraud if you bought it. And does he really think he's off the hook because he went to the auction site twice looking for the paperwork. Soooo, he gave his password to plaintiff so plaintiff could look online for a car. Plaintiff gave him $300 plus the price of the bid. Defendant dude makes the bid then writes the check and picks up the car from the auction, then takes it to his shop, where he keeps it for a couple months. Plaintiff eventually takes the car elsewhere to be repaired, then after repairs back to defendant to be titled. And dude says he had nothing to do with sale? Did I miss anything? Surprise, dude has to pay plaintiff 5 grand... but he gets the car that isn't a car. 

Edited February 16, 2017 by SRTouch
Spelling

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

dog bite case (should have skipped it):

I wish I had skipped it too. Everyone - from scammer plaintiffs looking for a big payout and who had no evidence of any kind ("Doctor report? EMT report? Picture showing injury? I apologize. I don't have that on me so take my word for it.") to the defendant, who could pay for puppymill designer puppies but refused to pay to get them out of the pound and doesn't give a shit of any kind over what happened to them - made me sick. If that were me, well - first of all I wouldn't be standing behind the door in my jammies while a child takes charge of 2 (or 3) dogs who can get through a fence and secondly I'd be at the pound the very next day to get my dogs. Oh, but she was just crying so much she couldn't care if her dogs die, terrified, at the pound. Hey, there are more puppies where they came from and the puppy peddlers don't care what the hell happens to their product.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

tax dispute:

Another scammer, who accepts plaintiff's work done on his behalf but refuses to pay for the service. He don't know nothing! Pay your debts, you deadbeat. JM didn't buy your incomprehensible, squeaky bullshit.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

used car deal gone bad: 

I will never understand people, like the terminally naive and stupid plaintiff, who hire strangers to buy them cars. Somehow I always managed to buy my own cars.  That's not bad enough but plaintiff sits on his ass for months and months while outrageous shyster def. keeps promising the title and repairs on some old 1700$ beater, fully expecting plaintiff to get exhausted and just go away. But I guess it's this kind of stupidity and shyter-ism that keeps small claims courts in business. If everyone used just an ounce of common sense we wouldn't need these courts.

[arejay]

Did "No-Puncture-Wound Dude" say he had been wearing Nikes, like rhymes with Mikes?

[AZChristian]

4 minutes ago, arejay said:

Did "No-Puncture-Wound Dude" say he had been wearing Nikes, like rhymes with Mikes?

Yep.  Because he's cool like that.

[Brattinella]

Nikes?  GAH!

[Bazinga]

And their dog was a Snauzer.

[AngelaHunter]

The first case - woman suing her boyfriend for rent - made me want to weep. Maybe I can understand certain women being willing to put up with some bottom-feeding loser/abuser/druggie whatever, because they feel their choices are limited and they can't do any better. In this case, we have a lovely, intelligent, stylish and appealing 28-year old woman who was feeling suicidal over that fugly, mini-troll little momma's boy creep with a hideous beard who got so depressed being separated from his mommy (and having his laundry done and meals made, etc) he dumped plaintiff and ran home. His mommy still writes his checks for him! He can't possibly get along without her. Anyway, JM gave plaintiff a really good talking-to (and restrained herself admirably in regards to the def. and managed not to say, "WTF were you thinking?") but I feel plaintiff needs intensive therapy to try and find out why her self-esteem is so low. I mean, this woman is a catch for any man, but obviously doesn't see herself that way.  HER mother seemed just as perplexed as I'm sure we all were.

The woman trying to get her "ward" into a sober living facility: Def seemed shady and unlikable, but plaintiff was worse. If she wants to mock people with a devastating illness (which she obviously has never had to deal with - yet!) she might try to be not quite so ignorant and learn the proper pronounciation. It's "Alzheimer's" and not "Alltimer's" you stupid, uneducated lowlife fool. JM, quite rightly, reamed her out for that. I thought Douglas was going to have to strong-arm and handcuff someone at the end, when plaintiff and def got into a shouting/insulting screaming match.

"He wanted to stain my deck without cleaning it" case was boring, other than that plaintiff told us everything his son said to def and that's what his case hinged on, but who knows, since son didn't show up to back up dad.

[SRTouch]

1. car repair kerfuffle: lady gets into a fender bender, and her car ends up at defendant's shop. This is a case where both sides are claiming things that make no sense. Plaintiff seems to be saying the repair shop caused more damage so they could pad the bill.  Not saying that doesn't happen, but with today's car bumpers you can end up with BIG damages that you don't see until you start taking stuff apart. Defendant is shady, though. First off, sounds like he pays tow drivers to give out cards to drivers at the scene of wrecks. Don't know if that's kosher, and in my experience the better shops get more than enough business without that. Then I think we heard three different estimates from the dude, ranging from 4 something up to 1200+. Both sides are making claims of what the other told the insurance adjuster and what the adjuster told them, but of course the adjuster isn't in court, and why bother bringing anything proving what your flapping gums are saying. Soooo.... what we have is plaintiff suing for ridiculous amount (pain and suffering don't you know) and repair shop slapped on a Lein and is holding car hostage. Basically (yes JJ, I say basically) shady shop gets car owner to sign something agreeing to let the shop use cheap parts and she won't have to pay her deductible.... hmmm, were these folks running a insurance scam? Turns out the adjuster's estimate was better than the shop's and shady shop couldn't fix it for their low ball estimate, so they won't release the car until the owner pays the difference. Silly case with scammers on both sides. Plaintiff agreed to scam her insurance company, and when the scam fell through shop scammers won't release her car and start tacking on $90 a day storage charges. MM chuckles at ridiculous claim, orders shop to release the claim and give lady her car and lady has to give shop the $300 odd insurance check.
2. pit bull eating little yappy chihuahua mix - skipped 
3. landlord vs tenant case: one of those where MM asks why they're in court. Landlord tells us tenant was a good tenant most of the time, but things went in the clapper towards the end. Seems tenant had a one night stand with some dude with a gf down the street. Defendant cleans up nicely for court, but is an entitled bad girl. Yeah, she had a one night stand with the dude. Yeah, gf down the road started sending the cops to her place (apparently dude had multiple warrants out). Yeah, she lied to landlord about it. Yeah she ruined the 2 year old carpet. Yeah, she ruined the window screens. Yeah, yeah, yeah, she owes the money. Why are we here today? Guess she doesn't mind airing her dirty laundry in front of America as long as she gets a free lunch.

[AngelaHunter]

38 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

car repair kerfuffle: lady gets into a fender bender, and her car ends up at defendant's shop. This is a case where both sides are claiming things that make no sense.

Nothing in this case made any sense to me. We had the mechanic's version of the ambulance chaser. Speaking of ambulance chasers: Levin, whatever you're growing on your face is not improving your appearance. I don't anything short of a head transplant would do that.

Skipped dog case as well.

41 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

landlord vs tenant case:

I was truly transfixed at this case. Defendant really, honestly thinks it's cute that she wanted to get into a fistfight in public (that seems to be normal behavior for her) with another women who was "messing around" with some prince of a guy who has a bunch of warrants out on him.  She also thought it was precious  (giggle)that she turned on her iron, left it on the floor in reach of her unfortunate three-year old child and wandered off to "have a nap." That's just adorable too but luckily only the carpet was burned and not the child playing with the iron while his/her dumb slob of a mother snored away. Well, sure, she sliced open the window screens when she forgot her keys, but why should her landlord mind, when she's so cute and all? She saw nothing wrong with anything she did and she made me sick, actually. I wish JM would have given her a serious reaming out although it probably would have been a waste of time. I hope she uses protection during her one-night stands with her criminal booty calls. No more kids should be subjected to someone like her as a (of course single) parent.

[AZChristian]

Yep, Harvey's facial hair makes him look like a slimeball. Oh, wait. Never mind.

[meowmommy]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Silly case with scammers on both sides. Plaintiff agreed to scam her insurance company, and when the scam fell through shop scammers won't release her car and start tacking on $90 a day storage charges. MM chuckles at ridiculous claim, orders shop to release the claim and give lady her car and lady has to give shop the $300 odd insurance check.

what we have is plaintiff suing for ridiculous amount (pain and suffering don't you know)

I know the defendant was a scammer, but the plaintiff was just as much of a scammer and she gets off without any penalty.  She doesn't even have to pay the deductible.

I have to think that a lot of these people have never seen TPC, but are recruited by the producers, because anyone who ever watches TPC with more than two functioning brain cells would know that pain and suffering are reserved for cases of actual pain and suffering.

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

Yep, Harvey's facial hair makes him look like a slimeball. Oh, wait. Never mind.

And that makes today different than any other day, how?  Oh, wait.  Never mind.  :)   BTW, I know civil language has taken a hit on TV, but I was still surprised that Levin was able to intro the third case with "I'm banging your boyfriend."  That's pretty crude for daytime TV.

Edited February 21, 2017 by meowmommy

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

because anyone who ever watches TPC with more than two functioning brain cells would know that pain and suffering are reserved for cases of actual pain and suffering.

Did anyone today - other than the landlord - have more than two functioning brain cells? I think not, thus the idiocy and stupid claims of coercion or pain and suffering over a dent in some old car or a birthday cake that wasn't the right colour.

 

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

I was still surprised that Levin was able to intro the third case with "I'm banging your boyfriend."  That's pretty crude for daytime TV.

Oh, that scuzzbucket says crude things all the time ("Liquor? He hardly knew.... oh, teehee!") but usually tries to make it sound cute - major failure, Levin. Nothing you say is clever or cute or witty, despite what your giggling gaggle of dimwits outside think.

[ElleMo]

3 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I know the defendant was a scammer, but the plaintiff was just as much of a scammer and she gets off without any penalty.  She doesn't even have to pay the deductible.

I was expecting a clean hands speech because both of them were scamming Geico. I hope someone from the company sees this and Geico  drops them both

[SRTouch]

1. ex-drug big wig wants his stuff back: well, this one is different. Plaintiff is an ex-dealer who got caught, had to downsize, and gave old buddy some stuff to hold onto when he lost the big house and moved to an apartment. Now, 8 years later, he wants his stuff back, but old buddy claims the stuff was given to him in exchange for a series of loans. Don't know about the rest of you all, but I took an immediate dislike to both of these two. Oh, also disliked plaintiff wifey who can't keep from interjecting her tidbits of nonsense - kept waiting for JM to tell her to pipe down and sit. Takes MM zero time to tell defendant she doesn't believe anything coming out of his yap. Also, sounds like this "stuff" was purchased with dirty money and probably would have been seized, so maybe the real reason it took so long for sleazy ex-dealer to demand the stuff was because he was hiding assets. MM doesn't say anything about that, and oddly enough the defendant helps plaintiff out by claiming plaintiff waited years before asking for the return of the crap - which reset the statute of limitations clock to when they agree he started asking for its return (which I also found kind of suspicious and wonder if these two cooked this case up to scam the system). She ends up giving plaintiff $2500 instead of $4500. Anyone else think it odd that happy losing defendant is suddenly ready in the hallterview to welcome back his longtime friend after testimony in court was that the "friends" hadn't spoken in 2-3 years? Everything about the hallterview reinforced my thoughts yhey were scamming TPC out of 2500 grand theory.
2. Neighbors getting physical: plaintiff claims neighbor lady beat him up during a kerfuffle, got him arrested, then vandalized his car - wants 4 grand. Defendant says no way, dude punched and kicked her, and she was pregnant at the time. Little bitty silly girl sees plaintiff sitting (don't know if dude is really unable to stand, but that's the way he's playing in court) so she comes in and sits, then smiles at Douglas when he tells her to stand at the lectern - she's countersuing for 3 grand for harrassment. Kerfuffle over noise complaints plaintiff made about upstairs neighbor defendant. Listening to his story, cops really had no choice but to arrest him, as he admits pushing at her and says her was bleeding - probably because he had his keys in his hand. Course there's totally different versions of the kerfuffle, and I don't understand why the case is on TV, as there is a pending criminal case. Let's ignore that, and wonder why neither side brought the security guard who could immediately testify which of these stories is full of it. Course MM doesn't have much trouble poking holes in Little Missy's story - she was quiet as a mouse, her two kiddies were asleep in bed, security knocks on her door, and for some reason identifies who complained about noise. And what's she do? Why of course she gets her kids up and takes them with her to go ask downsides dude what the problem is at midnight - uh, yeah, perfectly reasonable. Really nothing to say about the kerfuffle - to much has already been said if there's an open case - so on to the property damage portion, which probably should have waited, too. (MM has come up with a new saying, "I wouldn't believe you if your tongue was notarized!") Nobody gets anything. 
3. silly parking ticket case: quick show of hands - who thinks it's a good idea to put a car in your name for a friend? ?????  What, nobody... oh, Joey being a smarta$$ again. Great exchange between plaintiff and MM when she asks why. P-"I'm just a nice person." MM "No you're not a nice person, you're a stupid person." Ok, plaintiff puts a car in her name, and now there's almost a grand worth of parking tickets. She says from when he had the car, nope, he says she took back the car, so the tickets must be hers. Oh wow, these folks are too ignorant to watch, from plaintiff's two ton momma, Jabba, who has to take the freight elevator, mush mouth bf who makes no sense, and mush mouth mumbler Justin the defendant - I give up and zip to the end.  In hallterview Doug says MM gave poor Justin a hard time (actually says JM reamed him a couple times), but Justin isn't talking. Guess plaintiff got the ticket money. Don't know what's up with the car, which is registered in her name but both are on the loan, and not interested enough to go back and figure it out.

Edited February 22, 2017 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[DoctorK]

Quote

Everything about the hallterview reinforced my scamming TPC out of 2500 grand theory.

I started to smell a rat in the first couple of minutes. I was disappointed that MM raised the question of how 2004 ATVs could still be "brand new" when given to the defendant in 2008, but she let herself get distracted and never followed up. I think the plaintiff's explanation for this would have been entertaining.

[SRTouch]

4 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

I started to smell a rat in the first couple of minutes. I was disappointed that MM raised the question of how 2004 ATVs could still be "brand new" when given to the defendant in 2008, but she let herself get distracted and never followed up. I think the plaintiff's explanation for this would have been entertaining.

Guess the whole point of airing the case was to let MM tell us the statue of limitations angle. I mean, as an ex-assistant state attorney and criminal judge with time spent in civil and domestic violence court, you know she would have spotted the scam from just reading the filings. 

[AngelaHunter]

I've only watched the first two cases. Good lord, what unlikable, distasteful people. The druggie king-pin, who appeared to either have a runny nose, was in withdrawal or was high, wants all the money for his brand-new, four year old vehicles that he gave def. eight years ago. Mr. BigShot, the pusher, bragged how his addict customers would wipe his butt. That was really... charming. I wondered what kind of woman would want to be married to him, until I heard his wife speak. Yep, just as trashy as he is. Maybe DrugBoy can use his judgement to buy a suit that fits.

Then we got the vicious little gutter rat breeder, who has two little kids and is knocked up again. I thought she must have a great career to support herself and all these kids by herself (of course) but oops - surprise! she's sucking the taxpayers dry. Never saw that coming. Durr. There really needs to be a rule that anyone who goes on any kind of public assistance and then decides to get knocked up again should be cut off - not one more free dime. Find the wonderful world of birth control - as if - and get a frickin' job instead of buying outlandish wigs and staying up all night. IF she had to earn her own living, she wouldn't have the energy or time to be stomping around and physically confronting neighbours - dragging two terrified little children with her - at midnight.  I was originally sympathetic with plaintiff, but that changed. JM hated and detested both of them as much as I did.

[meowmommy]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Everything about the hallterview reinforced my scamming TPC out of 2500 grand theory.

 (MM has come up with a new saying, "I wouldn't believe you if your tongue was notarized!") Nobody gets anything. 

 

I would have hoped that people with that kind of criminal past who've supposedly turned over a new leaf wouldn't want to go on national television and remind their friends and associates, and maybe even highlight for new friends and associates who weren't aware, of said criminal past.

MM's used that saying for a long time, which I know because I've borrowed it often.  :)

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I started to smell a rat in the first couple of minutes. I was disappointed that MM raised the question of how 2004 ATVs could still be "brand new" when given to the defendant in 2008, but she let herself get distracted and never followed up. I think the plaintiff's explanation for this would have been entertaining.

Could have been as simple as they were bought but never used and therefore still in new condition.  Doesn't affect depreciation, but still.

[DoctorK]

Quote

Could have been as simple as they were bought but never used and therefore still in new condition.

I am not sure you can use that when selling/appraising a vehicle. Generally, I think "brand new" means direct from an authorized dealer with the full original warranty, as opposed to "good as new".

[DoctorK]

Quote

the vicious little gutter rat breeder, who has two little kids and is knocked up again.

Tell us how you really feel LOL. I was laughing my ass off in the hallterview when after JM busted her on her fake tears during the case she was sobbing so hard and struggling to squeeze out one actual tear. What a worthless piece of shit.

[AngelaHunter]

12 hours ago, DoctorK said:

JM busted her on her fake tears during the case she was sobbing so hard and struggling to squeeze out one actual tear.

Disappointing. I wanted her to keep fake-sobbing so JM would make good on her threat to "really lose it." I wanted to see what would entail and waited in gleeful anticipation, but the waterworks were abruptly shut down.

[SRTouch]

1. car repair kerfuffle with a twist: plaintiff is both a mechanic and long time customer at defendant's muffler shop. Lots of interrupting, cross talking and trying to over each other and the judge during this one. Plaintiff's story is that he took in his personal driver, a 94 "good" car, to get a muffler and tailpipe at the defendant's shop. Says shop worker lowered the lift before moving everything out of the way, and the welding tanks fell against his car and caused $1300 worth of damage. Defendant claims plaintiff put his own car on the lift, and was running the lift, so if there was any damage he did it himself. Silly defendant says he let plaintiff work on cars in his garage, and a couple seconds later claims dude ignores him when he tells him to stay out of the work areas. Nobody bothered to bring any pictures or proof of diddly, shop owner says mechanic who worked on the car was fired, so wasn't available to testify. Closest to a defense witness is shop manager who says he came out when he heard a commotion - but wasn't clear to me if the "noise" he heard was the tank hitting the car or plaintiff yelling to stop because the area wasn't clear. Neither side looks good, but MM comes down in favor of plaintiff. Doesn't make him happy though, as he keeps insisting his junker was worth way more than what the judge thinks, and she gives him a fraction of what he wants.
2. dog case - Nother pitty vs little yapper. don't know what happened, probably another case where owners think their pups reason like people while the dogs are being dogs. Anyway, I skip it. I gather from hallterview pit bull owner won. Without watching the case, my bet would be adorable fluffy owners argued their tiny puppy couldn't hurt a fly and would never attack a doggy giant, so no need to leash him. Big bad bully dog was picking on cutey pie.
3. tenant landlord case:  I had company over and this was on in the background, so may have missed something. My understanding is dude rented a room in female landlady's place. When he rented it his private bath was being remodeled, but was supposed to be finished within a couple days. A week after moving in, he gets tired of waiting so moves out, now he wants the money back. Landlady says hold on, he could have used the other bathroom - but evidently she had already testified (or maybe written in the filings) that she was uncomfortable with him using her bathroom to shower.  Hey, lady, he rented a room and bathroom, you failed to deliver what he paid for, give him back his money.

[AKA...CJ86]

I'm a little exhausted with a lot of the recent cases... seems like a lot of litigants have been "on" and "auditioning", well, for TPC

[meowmommy]

I really want to know what kind of world MM inhabits that she always has to say that phones are not just for dirty pictures.  I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone who uses their phone for dirty pictures.  

[meowmommy]

 

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

dog case - Nother pitty vs little yapper. don't know what happened, probably another case where owners think their pups reason like people while the dogs are being dogs. Anyway, I skip it. I gather from hallterview pit bull owner won. Without watching the case, my bet would be adorable fluffy owners argued their tiny puppy couldn't hurt a fly and would never attack a doggy giant, so no need to leash him. Big bad bully dog was picking on cutey pie.

That's pretty much exactly what happened.  Except for the part at the very end where the whiny little yuppie husband suddenly claimed the defendant was repeatedly throwing racial epithets at the yuppie Asian wife, but of course he couldn't get a recording of any of them.  

[AngelaHunter]

53 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

car repair kerfuffle with a twist:

OMG, both of them were "bananas" and the mechanic employee was just a liar - a very bad liar but he had no choice since his boss coached him to lie. So, like, I have a friend I've known for 15 years. She's a pathological liar and has never told the truth in all the years I've know her, but of course I keep doing business with her. Is this the first time we saw Douglas get aggressive with litigants? Go, Douglas! I just wish he'd been allowed to slap both of them. I mean, it was fun and all, up to a point. Love how plaintiff wants a bunch of money for his 24 year old Toyota. Yes, Camrys do keep a good value but not when the car is nearing the quarter century mark. Yep, bananas, all of them. Bananas and extremely annoying.

57 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

 don't know what happened, probably another case where owners think their pups reason like people while the dogs are being dogs. Anyway, I skip it.

Arrogant, stupid-looking plaintiff with a waxed moustache has a fenced yard where he lets his dog run free  - well, fenced except for the huge gap where a gate should be but isn't.  Oh, but his dog is trained to stop at that point, you see. Maybe it does, except when it sees something beyond that point it wants - squirrel, cat, another dog. Gee, then it doesn't stop. What a surprise. Oh, the other dog is the dreaded "pit bull" so of course its owner must be at fault. Not this time! What a shocker that even little fluffy dogs can instigate a fight. No matter how small or big, they are dogs. They may get the worst of it, but you can't always pin the blame on someone else. Even JM couldn't find the def. at fault. Pay for your own dog's vet care, put a gate up and stop blaming other people for your own stupidity.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

When he rented it his private bath was being remodeled, but was supposed to be finished within a couple days. A week after moving in, he gets tired of waiting so moves out, now he wants the money back.

He never moved in. On the day he was supposed to move in, nothing had been done to the bathroom except for tiles on the floor. Def. told him (jokingly) that he could shower in the kitchen sink. Well, he could have used her bathroom , even though she was "uncomfortable" with that idea. She told him some "girl" wanted to rent the place, even without any functioning bathroom. She refused to give plaintiff his money back. Def was that kind of  rough trade person (complete with platinum dyed hair) who says things like "Lookit." I found it amusing that TPC staff transcribed her phone message just as she spoke. "Movin", "Goin" etc.

Levin? Get rid of whatever you're growing on your face. I know you think you'll look young and hip and sexy the way many guys do with the stubble, but trust me - you look more like Beetlejuice with the fungus face.

[teebax]

16 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I really want to know what kind of world MM inhabits that she always has to say that phones are not just for dirty pictures.  I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone who uses their phone for dirty pictures.  

MM needs to find some new expressions. I can set my watch to when she's going to break out one of her current faves. The notarized line is used at least once an episode. The dirty pictures one comes up every time there's a case in which some idiot didn't take a picture for evidence. To borrow from another of her favorites, stick a fork in me; I'm done.

It's Rodeo break here in Southern AZ. We don't close schools for President's Day, but get a four-day weekend during Rodeo. I don't think I'll ever get used to living here! Anyway, this PA girl doesn't rodeo, so that means I'll get to see some TPC and reconnect with my old friends on the board. Hi, everybody!

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, teebax said:

this PA girl doesn't rodeo, so that means I'll get to see some TPC and reconnect with my old friends on the board.

Good, on both counts!

 

2 hours ago, teebax said:

The dirty pictures one comes up every time there's a case in which some idiot didn't take a picture for evidence.

Yes. She needs to pick the recipients of that more carefully. The thought of this plaintiff taking dirty pictures is both hilarious and alarming.

[SRTouch]

1. wash and wear Vera Lang wedding dress: jokes aside, I've never understood the desire for big extravagant dream weddings. No telling how much was spent on this one, but dress reportedly was over 8 grand. Anyway, plaintiff's story is that her wedding day was very hot, so they postponed some of the outside pictures until after the honeymoon. After the reception she notices the train got a little dirty from the floor, and a few makeup spots, so she takes it to be dry cleaned while she heads off for the honeymoon. When she opens the bag after picking it up from the cleaners she finds the color has changed, it shrunk and no longer fits, and the lacey top it falling off. She has pictures from the wedding which show a color change, but then anyone with a 'puter can change colors and print it out. Nah, the biggy is the falling apart bodice and whether it shrunk while being cleaned. Big burly cleaner should have been around for the old "What's My Line" game show. Anyway, he insists he followed the care instructions and then offered to fix any problems. Course, his idea of offering to fix any problems sounds off to me. He testifies that his recommendation was for the bride to call and complain to the manufacturer. Hmmph, if I had a jacket dry cleaned and it changed colors, suddenly was to small, and was ripped, I sure wouldn't take it back to the cleaners to have the rip repaired if I was told to call the manufact user about the shrinkage and color change. Anyway, I'm not buying what this dude is selling - especially after MM sends the bride out to change into the dress and we can see the size change. He really shoots himself in the foot when he testifies that nothing he did could shrink the dress. It definitely is now to small, and not because bride has been billed get eating since getting married - not to mentioned the damaged bodice. Ah, defendant suggests she must have been wearing industrial strength girdle... yeah, maybe a corset that she needed all the brides maids to help lace her into. I like MM's possible explanation, she discreetly asks bride if she got a boob job. (Back to extravagant wedding comment - plaintiff just had to have those missing photos, so she went and bought a replacement dress... geez does that mean she spent thousands more for a dress for pictures? Nope, she went cheap on the second dress.) Anyway, as much as MM sympathizes with poor bride, the girl has nothing from another cleaner or the manufacturer saying this guy screwed up. She orders the return of the $190 for the dry cleaning bill, and cleaner still is willing to repair the ripped bodice.
2. bumper cars in bar parking lot: when a fight breaks out at the bar, defendant backs plaintiff's car into another vehicle trying to leave. Silly case where defendant, who was the designated driver, runs into an ex and his current fling, kerfuffle, designated driver backs into parked car and now won't pay the damages because she had permission to drive drunk plaintiff's car. Actually, defendant says she's willing to pay some, but she feels plaintiff helped cause the problem by egging on the ex, and besides plaintiff wants her to pay full amount to instead of making an insurance claim. Morally, maybe she has some point - legally, not so much, as she assumed responsibility when she became the designated driver. Ah, but that is today's excuse. After it happened she was willing to pay for the repairs, paid part of it, then claimed she ran out of money - and what burns plaintiff is that she's waiting to get her car fixed, and two months later the "broke" defendant has money for a trip to Miami. Oh, and not to mention MM, points out both these girls failed to report they hit the parked vehicle (a crime) and according to defendant she stopped and let drunk plaintiff take over the wheel. They have some lame story that they went back the next day and the owner of the vehicle said forget it, no damage - wait, plaintiff is suing for over a grand in damage and the hit parked car was undamaged... not passing the sniff test. Now we get dueling mechanics with defendant's mechanic saying he can fix it cheap, but plaintiff's $1800 estimate from her guy is all new stuff and way more (looking at the damage picture I tend to go with plaintiff's guy, but wouldn't have hurt to get 2-3 more estimates.) MM rules in favor of plaintiff, partly because she was smart enough to get a signed estate mentioned on night of accident from defendant accepting full responsibility  (which she says she learned watching TPC). Really, 20 minutes wasted on case which should have taken 2 minutes... your honor, I have stated statement from defendant promising to pay for any and all repairs to damage caused by accident and she refuses to pay. Look at damages and decide, yep estimate is reasonable, pay up. Glad Doug grilled both of them about plaintiff taking over the driving when both agreed she was drunk. Like 90% of the drunks on the road, a little adrenaline jot and they figure the alcohol in her system magically dusappeared.
3. no settlement money for you: plaintiff in the case let defendant sleep on his couch for over a year with the understanding that he'd get a little something when defendant got his settlement money from a car accident. Says defendant was given $600,000 in the settlement, and now won't live up to his promise - so he wants 4 grand. Sure sounds like defendant took advantage of dude, but then plaintiff let him move in without first deciding how much defendant would pay. I understand, and might have let a 15 year "best friend" move in without getting anything in writing, but I sure would expect the best in to pay something when the lottery hit. (According to defendant the settlement was ""only" 200 grand.) Ah well, at some point defendant started boozing it up (according to plaintiff) and was told to stop stumbling around outside drunk, he didn't, so plaintiff locked him out. Course that caused hard feelings, and when the settlement finally came they were on the outs, so defendant gives him nada. Ah well, as one of Harv's crowd on the street said, you can't unilaterally back charge for a favor. Case dismissed.

[AngelaHunter]

8 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

wash and wear Vera Lang wedding dress: 

I'm sorry, but 8K for a wedding dress is ridiculous. You'd think a young couple would have a better place to put such a sum, but I have to wonder why Vera Wang makes purchasers sign a waiver when they buy a dress.

 

13 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

I've never understood the desire for big extravagant dream weddings.

Me either, especially when over half of marriages end in divorce and then we see them back on TPC or JJ calling each other every name under the sun. Oh, well, each to his own and if one's priority is a super expensive "designer" gown that's fine. I really don't know who was right or wrong, but it was a kick seeing plaintiff toddling off down the hall, barely able to walk in the tattered finery of her wedding gown.

16 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

bumper cars in bar parking lot: when a fight breaks out at the bar

It's always heartwarming to see young women duking it out over what is probably some loser guy. Too bad, since until then, they was having fun. These women always say, "She wanted to fight me" like this is a normal way for people to settle disagreements. Whole case was ho-hum and boring (we've heard this scenario a zillion times), except for Daddy's Amazing Jacket and this:

Plaintiff: "It was mines."

JM: "MINE, not mines."

Finally! She wasted her breath, but still - thank you, JM! I guess she just can't take it anymore.

Levin? You look like a derelict now who's been sleeping under a bridge. "I'm telling you."

[Broderbits]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I'm sorry, but 8K for a wedding dress is ridiculous. You'd think a young couple would have a better place to put such a sum, but I have to wonder why Vera Wang makes purchasers sign a waiver when they buy a dress.

My daughter has purchased a Vera Wang wedding dress for her ceremony in Paris this spring; and although I wouldn't be so extravagant myself, it's not my money. Actually this is their 2nd wedding since they were married by a justice-of-the-peace at City Hall some months ago; after Paris they will be having another ceremony at home for friends & family. They already own a home, they aren't planning on children, they both have excellent jobs (and excellent credit ratings). I was surprised she opted for such an expensive dress, but she's so sensible in everything else I figured she could splurge for once in her 34 years.

[meowmommy]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I'm sorry, but 8K for a wedding dress is ridiculous. You'd think a young couple would have a better place to put such a sum, but I have to wonder why Vera Wang makes purchasers sign a waiver when they buy a dress.

Me either, especially when over half of marriages end in divorce and then we see them back on TPC or JJ calling each other every name under the sun.

Don't ever watch Say Yes to the Dress.  It's astounding what women with no money will go into hock for, or bankrupt their parents, to look like a cheap hooker.  At least this Vera Wang dress seemed somewhat modest by comparison.  

Just because the bride said she didn't gain weight doesn't mean she didn't.  And who takes wedding pictures months after the fact?  

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

Just because the bride said she didn't gain weight doesn't mean she didn't.  And who takes wedding pictures months after the fact?

Maybe she wanted to get her 8K worth from the dress? I didn't quite get what she said - that it was too hot to take pictures on her wedding day because her was down or something... ?

Was I dreaming or drunk or did she say she gained 10 pounds? If so, that can make a big difference when you're that short.

 

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

 It's astounding what women with no money will go into hock for, or bankrupt their parents,

I know. Every woman wants to be Lady Di, without the budget. A friend of mine who is a widow took out a major homeowner's line of credit to finance her daughter's wedding (when the couple both work and had lived together for several years). The wedding, which is just a few short hours out of a lifetime, is the be-all and end-all of the marriage to many women. Maybe there are so many divorces because they expect the fairy tale to continue? I really don't know.

[DoctorK]

Quote

She has pictures from the wedding which show a color change, but then anyone with a 'puter can change colors and print it out.

I noticed that the wedding pictures and the bride wearing the wedding gown in the courtroom showed quite a color change. However, maybe it was just me but in the hallterview the bride was still wearing the gown and it looked white again.  I don't know what to believe, and it is true that different lighting (and after the fact editing of wedding pictures) can make significant differences in apparent color, especially with nominal "white" fabrics. I am no expert, but I lean towards the defendant's point of view that the dyes in the dress, especially as he noted the use of fluorescent dyes to make things "whiter than white" was the problem. I also would not be surprised if Vera Wang  quality is over rated, based on a lot of reality shows making a big deal about it. The "contract" that nothing that happens after the dress leaves the store is shaky; if there is a demonstrated defect in the material or workmanship, they are still liable - some consumer rights cannot be waived. No matter what the parking receipt says, if your car is damaged by proven negligence attributable to the garage company, they are still liable.

[telemachus2]

No mention of Saturday Night Live's Judge Milian skit??  Not much to say, true, but loved seeing someone other than Judge Judy portrayed.  You go, Marilyn!

[Brattinella]

10 hours ago, telemachus2 said:

No mention of Saturday Night Live's Judge Milian skit??  Not much to say, true, but loved seeing someone other than Judge Judy portrayed.  You go, Marilyn!

That subject is probably on the Saturday Night Live Forum here.  Look under "S" on Shows.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Brattinella

[SRTouch]

1. managing a 1 hit wonder: evidently, defendant had a hit song way back during Disco days, as MM gets all excited about songs from her younger days - me, never heard of him or the other singer who steered plaintiff to defendant... for me, back in the 70s I was strictly country and the biggest thing in music was the outlaw movement with Willie, Waylon, Paycheck vs Conway, Charlie Pride and Loretta and they pretty much just mailed the Group awards to the Statler every year. Anyway, in this case, Plaintiff is a manager in the biz, and she's wooing defendant Jay Stovall trying to become his manager. They go back and forth on a contract, but never sign the thing. Meanwhile, she's helping him out, paying for stuff (including Uber rides for his son) with the hope that eventually they'll have a contract. Course, her position is she was telling him all along he was eventually going to have to pay her back, and now that they're on the outs it time for him to pay. His position isn't that far off from hers - yes, they were talking about her becoming his manager,  but he wasn't willing to let her have all the control she wanted. Eventually, he got tired of her acting like his manager before they had a contract. He agrees she fronted him some money, but says nothing was said about repayment. Things really blow up at his first engagement since meeting each other. At the time, she has no official role and had nothing to do with getting the casino gig. Yet, here she is forcing her way backstage, getting into a kerfuffle with the promoter (who is in court as defense witness and says this isn't the first time she had trouble with plaintiff coming backstage when she wasn't supposed to). Anyway, big kerfuffle when promoter asks him to talk to at the casino gig, and potential contract goes bye bye. He agrees he owes her something, but argues no way what she's asking. P admits she has no receipts or records and some of what she's asking the judge says no way - like the money she paid her lawyer to work on the contract that was never signed. Actually, when MM asks defendant what he thinks he owes, he starts listing things plaintiff isn't even asking for. I figure her case is kaput. She gets what she has receipts for and/or what he agrees he owes under $100. Hmmm, not sure she should have even gotten that, since at the time payback was contingent on her becoming his manager, but dude agreed he owed something. For his counterclaim - apparently she took video of him doing an impromptu song while on a car ride, then posted the video on YouTube without his permission... and the video got lousy reviews. Nope, nothing for the counterclaim, but he did get some free publicity. Oh, and the promoter/defendant witness is now his manager.
2. sticky fingered handyman: plaintiff hired and fired defendant to get an apartment ready for rent. Supposedly, when the guy showed up for work he came bearing bottles of rum, so plaintiff fired him on the spot. Later on furniture and appliances are stolen, and plaintiff blames defendant. Surprise! Defendant says he showed up, did the work, guy accused him of stealing stuff and wouldn't pay him. Says he was fixing to sue for unpaid wages when plaintiff beat him to the punch and file suit for stolen stuff. Listening to this defendant I come to the conclusion that I was woefully underpaid back when I did the same type of work for my landlord when people moved out of the apartment complex. I believe defendant, well the wages may be inflated a tad. Plaintiff makes no sense when he admits the guy cleaned up and painted three rooms (multiple coats of white to cover red paint), but insists he never hired him. Instead, he's saying defendant wanted to move into the place, do he came over and did the work on his own. Oh, then he gets caught trying to charge defendant with stealing the fridge, even though D has proof that fridge is question belonged to Rent a Center and was rented by previous tenants, who came and took it back. Then plaintiff's own witness gets up and backs up defendant's story. Oh wow, plaintiff about throws out his shoulder trying to raise his hand, but MM isn'the hearing it and talks to his witness and defendant. Nope, I'm to throw out the case now, but MM still needs some filler. 
3. Still boycotting dog cases

Ok, humorous but true off topic story. In about 45 minutes I have ano appointment to make my last payment on my trailer and become the owner. Between now and then, I need to make a quick stop at the bank, because current owner insist on a cashiers check.... for 16 cents.

[AngelaHunter]

40 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

I need to make a quick stop at the bank, because current owner insist on a cashiers check.... for 16 cents.

I never thought text-speak would be something I would use, but this calls for it:  "lol whut?"

Congrats on your burn-the-mortgage day!

[meowmommy]

I lived through the disco era and I never heard of this guy.  That song he sang, never heard it.

40 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Ok, humorous but true off topic story. In about 45 minutes I have ano appointment to make my last payment on my trailer and become the owner. Between now and then, I need to make a quick stop at the bank, because current owner insist on a cashiers check.... for 16 cents.

Congrats but I probably just would have added 16 cents to the penultimate payment.  When I was looking to buy a house with cash, I learned that you can't actually use cash.  No one will accept it.  So I had to put my cash in the bank and then have the money wired.  And let me tell you, it is not easy to put cash in the bank.  Like climbing a greased pole.

[teebax]

19 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I know. Every woman wants to be Lady Di, without the budget. 

Not every woman. My partner and I just started talking marriage and we both agreed we'd rather spend our dough on the honeymoon. 

That being said, there was no indication the couple couldn't afford it, so I don't care what they spent. 

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

evidently, defendant had a hit song way back during Disco days, as MM gets all excited about songs from her younger days - me, never heard of him or the other singer who steered plaintiff to defendant...

I never heard of him either. I lived through disco, but really wasn't paying attention. I was busy. I also never heard of the person plaintiff said she was driving/riding with, although JM certainly had. Whatever, but for someone who appeared to be in dire straits - unable to get his teeth fixed or provide his visiting son a place to sleep - he seemed rather imperious, expecting his "manager" to pick up his dry cleaning and pay his carfare. The only person I really believed was def's witness, who said plaintiff showed up drunk all the time. Of course plaintiff never bothered keeping any receipts. Or maybe she got drunk and lost them. I wonder how many clients she has?

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

sticky fingered handyman: plaintiff hired and fired defendant to get an apartment ready for rent.

I couldn't understand most of what plaintiff said, but the very idea that defendant just decided to go off and clean up, paint and improve plaintiff's property, just for the fun of it, was ludicrous. Cleaning up some slob's trash isn't what I would consider a good time. Plaintiff should have kept his trap shut, since JM awarded def. money instead. Nice to see justice done.

1 hour ago, teebax said:

Not every woman. My partner and I just started talking marriage and we both agreed we'd rather spend our dough on the honeymoon. 

Not me either. My husband and I decided we'd rather spend money on less transient things than showy wedding gowns. Mine was fairly inexpensive but the wedding was lovely anyway. Of course, we paid it for it ourselves. Might have been different if I had parents willing and able to cough up the dough, but I doubt it, since I was an older bride and had different priorities. My husband ended up knocking over an entire glass of red wine on my dress at our wedding dinner, so just as well it was a discount number.  I think he was more upset than I.

[seacliffsal]

Regarding the wedding dress plaintiff-wasn't she suing for the full cost of the dress (which was then limited by the court's maximum)?  As Judge Judy would say- ridiculous!  I appreciated that when the plaintiff told JM that she had a photo from the end of the reception, JM told her that she (JM) didn't know where the plaintiff went or what the plaintiff did after the photo was taken.  Just brainstorming here, but maybe there was some dancing and drinking involved... She agreed that there were stains, spills, and dirt on the dress and that's why she took it to the dry cleaners; yet those didn't show up in the photo she showed in order to 'prove' that the dress was in pristine condition when she took it to the cleaners.   I really think the plaintiff was trying to get a payout for a wedding dress that she will never wear again.  

[VartanFan]

Quote

The first case - woman suing her boyfriend for rent - made me want to weep. Maybe I can understand certain women being willing to put up with some bottom-feeding loser/abuser/druggie whatever, because they feel their choices are limited and they can't do any better. In this case, we have a lovely, intelligent, stylish and appealing 28-year old woman who was feeling suicidal over that fugly, mini-troll little momma's boy creep with a hideous beard who got so depressed being separated from his mommy (and having his laundry done and meals made, etc) he dumped plaintiff and ran home. His mommy still writes his checks for him! He can't possibly get along without her. Anyway, JM gave plaintiff a really good talking-to (and restrained herself admirably in regards to the def. and managed not to say, "WTF were you thinking?") but I feel plaintiff needs intensive therapy to try and find out why her self-esteem is so low. I mean, this woman is a catch for any man, but obviously doesn't see herself that way.  HER mother seemed just as perplexed as I'm sure we all were.

I did feel so sad for that girl.  I hope she's in a better place now.  I felt a bit differently about the ex, however.  I feel like he wasn't a gutter dirtball like a lot of the others.  He did pay many months and somewhat supported her during her hospitalization.  And I give him some credit for calling the mom.  I mean, he's no prize as a 'catch', but still...

[Taeolas]

Sad news today, :( 

Judge Joseph Wapner Dead at 97, Presided Over The People's Court.

[meowmommy]

Oh, no!

Joseph Wapner, judge on ‘The People’s Court,’ dies at 97

[Pepper the Cat]

So sad. Judge Wapner was the best judge ever

[Taeolas]

I'm sure they'll have a memoriam in the next new ep, whenever it is. 

I hope later on they can do a legacy episode, re airing his best episodes from his era. (Sort've like Judge Mathis has been doing Throwback cases). 

At the very least, the ep where he retook the bench will probably get put back in the cycle soon I hope. 

[teebax]

3 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Oh, no!

Joseph Wapner, judge on ‘The People’s Court,’ dies at 97

He lived a very long time. My parents 55-year maeriage pales in comparison to his marriage of 70 years. Wow.

I did some research and was surprised to learn how long ago Rusty died.

Also, Wapner had no love for Judge Judy or Harvey Levin. Made me love him even more.

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, teebax said:

Also, Wapner had no love for Judge Judy or Harvey Levin. Made me love him even more.

I remember him laughing at the way Levin would stand on a box so as not to be such a shortass. Is there anyone who didn't love Judge Wapner?