The People's Court - General Discussion

[DoctorK]

Quote

Quote

He might be better off pawning that ton of gold hanging around his neck if he needs extra $$

 

I suspect that it is a ton of jewelry but 1/10th ounce of actual gold. Like the rip off "gold" replica coins sold on TV late at night, fine print tells you that you are getting 14 milligrams of actual gold for a price of $50. Anyone who can do simple arithmetic should see what is going on with this.

[Jamoche]

Quote

finds suspicious text from "Kevin" - dials up "Kevin" - some girl answers "Hi Honey"

Shades of "Jake from State Farm" :)

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Like the rip off "gold" replica coins sold on TV late at night, fine print tells you that you are getting 14 milligrams of actual gold for a price of $50.

I haven't seen any of those, but yeah - I guess a lot of people get fooled when you consider no one on this show even reads the clauses of their leases or binding contracts, let alone any fine print anywhere.

[SRTouch]

1. castaway: group of women plan a sailing trip. The plaintiff has crewed with the group in the past, but after a kerfuffle boat owner/captain kicks her off the crew - well MM decides she quit, not was tossed overboard. Problem is, and reason for the lawsuit, she's already paid her share of the planned trip. So, she wants to be refunded her money, but the defendant says the money was already spent on docking fees/trip expenses, so no refund. I found the case pretty useless - different but useless. Lots of, at least to me, boring talk about the kerfuffle and who was at fault. Geez, two supposed adults engage in email kerfuffle instead of someone picking up a phone, or heaven forbid, actually getting in their car and going over for a face to face meeting. Email/texts are fine for brief exchanges of information, but worse than useless when conveying emotions. The case is about whether or not plaintiff gets back the money she put forward towards the expense of the trip. As I understand it, she was just one of a group of 3 women going on a sailing trip - not getting paid as crew or paying for the trip, except to chip in towards the expenses. She didn't quit the group, she was told she couldn't come on the trip until/unless she accepted full blame for the kerfuffle and apologized to the all mighty captain. Both litigants acted like spoiled 5 year olds. Only way I see captain gets to keep the money is if the entire trip was canceled (and if it was canceled, did she try to find a replacement crew member). Maybe I missed it, but that was the critical question in my mind. MM disagrees, she let's captain keep the money, except for her share of the foid, which cap had previously offered to return. Ah well, maybe she read something in the email war I missed. Doug tries to get them to admit they should have actually talked - but they're just oh so busy, and the other side should have called... yep, in one ear out the other, nothing changed.
2. Tenant vs landlord: ah, another one of those. Tenant claims the only hot water heater was on her utility meter for multiple residents, and now that she's moved out landlord is trying to hold her deposit to pay for electricity someone else used. Not only is she sueing for return of the deposit, and she tacked on extra for "inconvenience". Defendant landlord, says no, that was her bill, and besides she moved owing rent which hasn't been paid. Well, whose name is on the bill and what does the lease say about who pays it? Sounds like an old house that's been carved up into multiple residents. Obnoxious and funny looking defendant admits one of his "guests" broke into her room. I just don't get why people wear a loose tie with an open collar - and this guy compounds that with odd color shirt and sweater vest, mostly bald head of uncombed hair and squinting through glasses. She claims other guests bugged her for rides, etc. Really wonder if this place is legal for multiple residents - sounds shady and almost a flop house. Anyway, I have no idea who or how many people lived there. She admits lease says she's responsible for "her" utilities, but says there's no way to quantify how much she used, so she paid nothing the year she was there and now and he wants her to pay for everything. Defendant says she's all wrong, then comes up with silly nonsensical version of the agreement. Really, all I took from his version was an admission that he agreed it wasn't fair for her to pay all the utilities,  so the lease (which he wrote and would be required to make clear) was unclear/unfair regarding utilities. Somewhere in his nonsense, he alleges she doesn't work, goes on months long trips, and is getting some nonprofit to help pay her rent. Over to plaintiff, who sort of confirms what he said, yes, a friend paid her way to Europe, yes she subsequently lost her job, yes she applied to a nonprofit for help with rent, but no, she didn't buy her kayak until after the nonprofit helped her... geez, I may think defendant is nonsensical, but lady you just lost me. Maybe I should apply for assistance, stop paying rent and get a boat - not a kayak, but maybe a Jon boat for lake fishing. Ah well, she may have scammed some agency, but that doesn't entitle landlord to pocket the deposit. She gets back depisit minus the unpaid rent, but not the extra inconvenience money. Landlord gave up the utility money when he admitted the lease was wrong and never renegotiated, especially as she was month to month tenant so he could have given her 30 day notice instead of letting her slide a year with no utility payments.
3. 'Nother tow case: plaintiff says she left her car in a resturant parking lot was she went to some festival, and surprise! It was towed. Then she says when she went to pick it up at impound, the fees were jacked up, so she wants a refund of her fees - oh, and lost wages, so wants $544. Defendant claims tow fees are legit, she already complained to city officials and was denied, oh, and he wants lost wages, too, but he values his time more, so countersuit for a grand. Hmmm, so plaintiff starts out trying to laugh off her illegally parking in a posted private lot, trying to shift all wrongdoing onto the tow company with the over charge charge. Geez, anybody understand the charges when MM reads the posted sign. Made no sense to me, why not just "customer only, anyone else will be towed, if towed call xxx to get your car." Anyway, plaintiff's understanding of goobligok sign is that she should owe $85, but when she gets to impound she is told the real charge is $240,  the sign is wrong, blame the city for not keeping it current. I'm a little more sympathetic towards plaintiff when defendant tow guy starts in with his explanation - nope not buying it, sounds like double talk. If the fees are posted, he can't just arbitrarily charge whatever. If he needed to charge more because she was parked wrong, where's the evidence... he can't testify how she was parked since he wasn't there, and he didn't bring pictures or the actual driver. Then he commits the sin of yakking away and trying to talk over the judge as she asks him questions. Dude, nobody likes it when you interrupt and talk over them, but it's especially bad to start answering an authority figure mid-question.  Shut your mouth and give brief, concise answers to questions, but only when you are sure the lady in the black dress is finished asking the freeking question. Oh boy, busted dude, the judge did her research, and knows what can be charged in your jurisdiction... and plaintiff is right, you charged almost 3 times the legal limit. Some attempt by tow dude to fast talk his way out of it, but MM shuts him down cold. He gives up on the extra charges because of how she was parked, and now his excuse is the law setting the maximum tow charges is outdated and he's currently in litigation with the city to get them updated... dude, that doesn't mean you can unilaterally ignore the law and set your own fees. The case is pretty much over, well except for plaintiff asking for damages she isn't entitled to. First the fee, yes she gets back the over charge, but she parked illegally and owes the legitimate fee. Second, as we hear all the time, you don't get paid for the time it takes to pursue/defend your case. Yeah, a settlement may include lawyer fees and if you miss work because the other side has your car or some equipment that prevents you from working, but not when you get towed for breaking the law. Oh, then we get off the wall reason for the extra damages... something about how this $240 charge, which she has jacked up into a $540 case, is somehow robbing her and all the others this evil tow company of their dream homes. Geez, I thought she was a legitimate litigant, now she's performing for the audience. Lol, MM decides to sock it to overcharging tow dude, and grants plaintiff everything she's asking for... calling it punitive damages rather than missed work etc - hey, sometimes the squeaky wheel gets greased. Yeap, MM is worked up. Remember the time she gets all excited about the wedding venue lady who rented a place knowing it was unpermitted and the litigant had the gall to ask for a gag order? She's that worked up, and advises plaintiff to take her complaint to the licensing board governing the tow company. Hmmm, wonder if plaintiff could get a clip of this on her local news and add some heat to the tow dude's life.

Edited March 3, 2017 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

castaway: group of women plan a sailing trip.

Again, with mature, seemingly educated grown women acting like 2nd graders. "She was mean to me!" "She yelled at me!" "Did not!/Did too!" "She started it!"

Def did seem to have trouble listening, seeing the way she kept interrupting JM to answer questions before they were asked. Plaintiff is a big baby with a "You're not the boss of ME!" attitude. Pretty disgraceful.

Doug: "The door is that way." No wonder we love him.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Tenant vs landlord:

Freakin' loonies, both of them. I'd have more to say if I could have understood anything def. said. I guess his "lady friend" declined to appear. I would too if he were my boyfriend.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

this guy compounds that with odd color shirt and sweater vest,

The sweater vest was awesome, particularly with the stretched-out bottom hem, which the camera people sneakily showed us. Hee! I have no idea why plaintiff was getting charity. Kayaks and trips to Europe and stalkers...  By then my head was spinning with all the wacky stories from def. who thought plaintiff should pay utilities now when he never made her pay them before.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

'Nother tow case: 

The "Listen!" plaintiff must have rehearsed her opening argument, complete with wide-spread arms, in front of a mirror before the case. She parked illegally, stealing space from a business, and she knew damned well she couldn't do that but wished to pretend she did it during some fugue state. Usually tow companies win here, but def was so outrageous in his charging whatever money he feels he's due and the law be damned (and of course he doesn't have his evidence TODAY) that JM actually gave plaintiff punitive damages. Def, "I know where this going." Why is everybody always picking on him?

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

The "Listen!" plaintiff must have rehearsed her opening argument, complete with wide-spread arms, in front of a mirror before the case. She parked illegally, stealing space from a business, and she knew damned well she couldn't do that but wished to pretend she did it during some fugue state. Usually tow companies win here, but def was so outrageous in his charging whatever money he feels he's due and the law be damned (and of course he doesn't have his evidence TODAY) that JM actually gave plaintiff punitive damages. Def, "I know where this going." Why is everybody always picking on him?

Yes.  You've captured the essence of this case (a tip of the hat to you too SRTouch) but I really couldn't stand the plaintiff.  Just could not.  I don't know if it was her wing-span gesture, beak nose or the fact that JM is rewarding this special snowflake who thinks she can park her carcass wherever she likes (the hell with those wanting a space to park while visiting the restaurant) because said long-in-the-tooth snowflake wants to go to a festival.   She really annoyed me. 

Now the defendant was no Cracker Jack prize either but I think she was way more annoying than him.  And on another note - did you get a look at the real nice court duds the defendant sported?   He looked like just rolled out from under a truck from changing the oil.  And he was sweating profusely too.  

Not the polished look that is desired in courtrooms across the US.

[AngelaHunter]

9 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Now the defendant was no Cracker Jack prize either but I think she was way more annoying than him.

I don't know who I disliked more. They were both repugnant and I was sorry plaintiff got rewarded for knowingly parking illegally. Obviously JM hated def. more.

I would have liked this case to be on JJ, because she would have instantly shut down the plaintiff's "Your honour, I have been wronged and I throw myself on the mercy of the court!" theatrics with a "This is not an audition!"

9 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

said long-in-the-tooth snowflake wants to go to a festival.

She's way too old to try and be cutesy.

Edited March 3, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[SRTouch]

49 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

The "Listen!" plaintiff must have rehearsed her opening argument, complete with wide-spread arms, in front of a mirror before the case. She parked illegally, stealing space from a business, and she knew damned well she couldn't do that but wished to pretend she did it during some fugue state. Usually tow companies win here, but def was so outrageous in his charging whatever money he feels he's due and the law be damned (and of course he doesn't have his evidence TODAY) that JM actually gave plaintiff punitive damages. Def, "I know where this going." Why is everybody always picking on him?

Later I figured he came on TV hoping MM wouldn't bother to research the local ordinances. When she told him she had done her research, he tried to argue that there was something in a different part of the LONG ordinance allowing him to adjust the price because of how plaintiff parked. Uh no, "I have the ordinance here, let me read it aloud". I'm convinced he talked himself into those punitive damages with his changing defense and arguing that he just ignore the ordinance and charge whatever he wanted.

[wallysmommy]

I tried to watch yesterday's ep after taking Alka Seltzer Cold Nighttime and watching Live PD.  I snored through the entire episode of PC.  I can't remember one word they said of the three cases, so thanks for the recaps.

[Hockeymom]

20 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

The "Listen!" plaintiff must have rehearsed her opening argument, complete with wide-spread arms, in front of a mirror before the case. She parked illegally, stealing space from a business, and she knew damned well she couldn't do that

I didn't get why she got reimbursed for taking a taxi to get her car, being inconvenienced, etc. So they were two hours away - so what? She created the situation.  She would have had to get her car back either way. Yes, the tow guy over charged her. But, she parked illegally, so he had every right right to tow. That was never in question. If it was a hassle to retrieve the car, whose fault was that?

Just because he over charged, why did she get a bonanza? Obviously, the judge wanted to punish him, but I hated to see her profit from it. Then, the judge, sics her on the tow guy and tells her to make his life hell with the town. Kinda overkill.

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, Hockeymom said:

I didn't get why she got reimbursed for taking a taxi to get her car, being inconvenienced, etc. So they were two hours away - so what? She created the situation.  She would have had to get her car back either way. Yes, the tow guy over charged her. But, she parked illegally, so he had every right right to tow. That was never in question. If it was a hassle to retrieve the car, whose fault was that?

Just because he over charged, why did she get a bonanza? Obviously, the judge wanted to punish him, but I hated to see her profit from it. Then, the judge, sics her on the tow guy and tells her to make his life hell with the town. Kinda overkill.

While I certainly didn't like overly theatrical plaintiff, I get slapping the hand of tow dude. I figure plaintiff would, and should, have been awarded the difference from the $240 overcharge and the $85 legit fee had it not been for defendant's own testimony. His original defense, that he upped the fee because of how she parked, was blatantly bogus. Then he tried to bluff the judge on what the ordinance permits him to charge.  When she says she read the statute he argues with has her interpretation. Course he doesn't have a copy of the statute, but she does. He still can't shut up, and she ends up reading the pertinent paragraph aloud. Finally, he gives up arguing law with a career lawyer/judge, and new defense is the law is outdated and he feels justified in unilaterally ignoring the fee limits. Nope, not how things work, you don't get to ignore the law when you disagree with it, then come to court when you get caught and resort a multiple choice defense.

Edited March 4, 2017 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[Hockeymom]

I agree, SRTouch. He was wrong. But she should only have gotten the difference. She would have had to travel even if he charged her fairly. Tow guy was totally wrong for the overcharge. If the Plaintiff had to abide by the No Parking sign, then so did he. He was bound by those charges.

I just didn't like that he got punished twice. Once by the Judge for making him overpay, and again by urging the Plantiff, who has now come away unscathed by her own transgression, to pursue his license with the town.

I'm not justifying him for the reasons you outlined. Just questioning why she gets a pass.

[AngelaHunter]

40 minutes ago, Hockeymom said:

I'm not justifying him for the reasons you outlined. Just questioning why she gets a pass.

Exactly what I said. Why should she be enriched? As my mother used to say, "She's big enough and old enough and ugly enough" to know she did something she knew was wrong. JM seemed to be running on emotion for this case.

[Hockeymom]

37 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

enriched

That's the word I was looking for!!!

[DoctorK]

Quote

Obviously, the judge wanted to punish him, but I hated to see her profit from it.

Sadly, this looks like a case where JM dropped the whole concept of "clean hands" in order to give a verdict based on her emotional reaction. She usually resists this temptation.

[Guest]

On ‎3‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 5:29 PM, AngelaHunter said:

"She's big enough and old enough and ugly enough" to know she did something she knew was wrong. 

Would you mind if I added this stellar sentence to my repertoire? 

Your mom had to have been a hoot and holler.   My mom had sayings I've found myself adopting....ball tosser, jarring my potatoes, the enchanted cottage couple, etc.  

Where would we be without mom or grandmom sayings?

[AngelaHunter]

57 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Would you mind if I added this stellar sentence to my repertoire? 

Be my guest! The more people who use my mother's expressions, the better. I never really got the "ugly" part, but now I use it myself!:p

[ElleMo]

On 3/4/2017 at 4:46 PM, Hockeymom said:

I agree, SRTouch. He was wrong. But she should only have gotten the difference. She would have had to travel even if he charged her fairly. Tow guy was totally wrong for the overcharge. If the Plaintiff had to abide by the No Parking sign, then so did he. He was bound by those charges.

I just didn't like that he got punished twice. Once by the Judge for making him overpay, and again by urging the Plantiff, who has now come away unscathed by her own transgression, to pursue his license with the town.

I'm not justifying him for the reasons you outlined. Just questioning why she gets a pass.

 

He's getting punished twice because everything he said indicates that he will keep doing the same thing to everyone in town.  

[Hockeymom]

4 minutes ago, ElleMo said:

He's getting punished twice because everything he said indicates that he will keep doing the same thing to everyone in town.

He also stated that currently he is in litigation with the city over this issue. So, either way it will be resolved.

[SRTouch]

Rerun season has arrived

1. car rental fiasco: plaintiff is a hustler who has found a niche renting fancy cars to folks - not a lying/scheming hustler trying to get over on people, but a guy who found a niche and may not be following all the rules to make a living. Defendant rents an $80 car (I think they said BMW). Ghetto rich defendant has to rent from small rental places or alley dudes because the big rental agencies have her on a no-rent list - course she says she's on the list because of her sister, not something she did. She's supposed to have it for 1 day, but ends up keeping it long past the turn in date, piling on all kinds of miles, and generally just trashing it. Can't believe a word she says, most of it makes no sense, and of course she has no evidence of her phone calls and/or texts or any witnesses. Supposedly, she had to make an emergency out of state trip, so left the $80 a day car with ex bf who was to turn it in - she says he was the one who trashed the car and drove it all those miles. Wouldn't make a difference to me, she rented it and is liable if she gives the keys to someone else. Course that brings up a couple problems with plaintiff's operation, things like insurance, business license, and a binding rental contract restricting who is authorized to drive the rental. Gotta feel for the dude, he may not be following all the rules, but he's trying and this defendant put a major dent in his operation. Eventually, after calling looking for his car and being blocked, he reports the car stolen and defendant gets arrested for stealing the car. Unfortunately, when car is located it's been trashed and has been driven 2,000 miles in 10 days. Ok, she's going to pay, only thing is how much - especially as some of his losses would have been covered by insurance if he was a regular rental agency - ah hell, give him the 5 grand max. Not sure if JJ wouldn't have just declared he had dirty hands because he was running a rental agency without proper insurance etc, but glad MM didn't go there. Ok, that takes cares of the main case, now the counterclaim. Course, the first part, $1000 for false arrest is thrown out without much discussion. The good part is the harrassment. He's the guy who comes up with idea to post the car for sale on CL with a dirt cheap price, with her phone number. Course, her problem is she can't prove he posted the ad, she even says he, his daughter, or some unknown person posted it... so, to sue him she needs to prove he did something, not just that he had a good motive. So, her phone is being blown up with people from all over the US wanting this cheap BMW. Heck, in keeping with her belief that evidence is overrated in legal matters, she doesn't have a copy of the ad or any phone records backing up what she's saying. Then, as the judge rules, smart a$$ defendant applauds and asks, "good, are we finished?" Ah, smug and unrepentant defendant couldn't keep her mouth shut til the hallterview, so another lecture from the judge, of course, zero effect as she smiles and stands smirking with her arms crossed. When she does arrive outside, Doug ends up asking if she's as stupid as he thinks she is. Her witty response, are YOU as stupid as I think YOU are? Yep, she learned that one in preschool. Extra long case - went 30 minutes...
2. battling ex'es (stopped watching at first commercial break): plaintiff suing ex, saying she's been collected extra child support, and he wants it back. Good grief, divorced for 20 years and still going to court - what a way to live. So, the story is that child support was to continue if the kids went to college, so wife kept collecting the support even though daughter wasn'the in school. Truth is, I stopped watching at the commercial break, because I find these cases almost as sad as dog cases - well no really the same, as I usually get mad with clueless dog owners. Evidently they found enough to talk about, as they managed to take half the show talking about it - but not for me.

Edited March 7, 2017 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

car rental fiasco: 

Def is a hustler and a liar and a thief and an amoral scumbag POS and even the second viewing doesn't lessen the disgust. Sure, I'd be standing there, casually admitting that my name is blacklisted with every car rental agency around and that I met the plaintiff at the bailbonds place. Sounds reasonable. JM tried to instill some shame into her, but what a waste that was. She was revolting. Doug (I love you!) in the hall: "Are you as stupid as I think you are?" Her reply, "Are YOU as stupid as I think you are?" and "I know you are, but what am I?" How intelligent and articulate she is, with that witty repartee. Doug directs her fat ass in the right direction - out the door. Yeah, she is that stupid, since when she commited some sort of bank embezzlement/fraud she got caught, because most criminals are not overly bright. I don't think she could tell the truth if her life depended on it.

 

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

battling ex'es (stopped watching at first commercial break):

You didn't miss anything. Rotund little plaintiff is just so abusive and brutal that def. had to call the police countless times. His cruelty and brutality were so extreme that she decided to have only four children with him. I mean, she could have had six or eight, but he was just so mean and cruel she stopped at four....

Edited March 8, 2017 by AngelaHunter
cuz I still can't spell after my 2nd glass of Cabernet

[Guest]

It looks like I missed a whole lot of jolly today.

I have a suggestion for Doug.  He should have a cattle prod propped up against the wall so whenever some lowlife gives him sass he can poke them in the hiney with it as they're walking (or waddling) away. 

Hiney.  {snort}

Edited March 7, 2017 by PsychoKlown
Because

[bettername2come]

Defendant today reminded me of some of the seven and eight-year-old with attitudes that I teach. 

[AngelaHunter]

18 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

He should have a cattle prod propped up against the wall so whenever some lowlife gives him sass he can poke them in the hiney with it as they're walking (or waddling) away.

Hahahhahahha! I'd pay good money to see that. "It is what it... eeeeek!"

[califred]

That car "renter" was a real piece of work this time too.  Hustla as JJ would say.

[SRTouch]

today's abbreviated rerun recaps (some cases are worth watching numerous times - not these, at least not for me):

1. painting class kerfuffle: wild ladys' afternoon. Defendant hires an artist to come to her afternoon tea party to teach guests how to draw/paint. Plaintiff thinks it's a an art class, but quickly learns he's part of her hired adult entertainment. Now, he wants additional money for being insulted by being dressed up as a doorman and lumped in with the male strippers. Wasn't that interested the first airing, and zipped to next case.
2. Illegal rental refund: west coast (Oregon) coed rents NY apartment sight unseen. When she arrives, not only is the place illegal, but pretty much unlivable with plumbing not hooked up. To top it off, she's living off campus so that she can have her dog with her, the pictured yard is off limits, and landlord comes unannounced while she's out and lets dog out. Why oh why is girl bringing a husky to college? Some breeds are good apartment dogs and would do well in a college freshman student busy hectic life, but I don't see a Siberia husky living the good life sitting in an apartment bored out of his mind. Anyway, another one I zipped through. Hard to believe landlord thought he was entitled to switch apartments on the girl and charge rent on illegal apartment.
3. pedestrian vs auto case: jay walking lady gets clipped by car, now wants 5 grand. Plaintiff and her witness admit she crossed street illegally and walked in front of defendant, but figure she should get paid even though by all accounts she was the one acting negligently. Didn't watch this one either, though as I remember it was kind of funny the first time to listen to her insist plaintiff should payou even though he did nothing wrong.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

painting class kerfuffle: wild ladys' afternoon.

I think she was even more obnoxious and worse on a second viewing. The first time I didn't really notice what ratty extensions she has. Strippers - ugh!

[howiveaddict]

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I think she was even more obnoxious and worse on a second viewing. The first time I didn't really notice what ratty extensions she has. Strippers - ugh!

You forgot the part where she was arrested while having her hair/weave colored.  Same thing happened where I live.  A guy got half his afro cut off.   

[SRTouch]

1. rerun about the hit and run road rage trip to the beach: no matter what, nobody is going to convince this woman she is liable for anything... she's the sun damaged, middle aged, overweight beach bunny with the faded chest tat peeking out from under her top, wearing tight jean clam diggers. Apparently, plaintiff pissed her off when he changed lanes in front of her to avoid a slow moving/merging vehicle towing a boat. Defendant lays on the horn, but plaintiff has his windows up and doesn't hear her. Hey, maybe she has a point and he made an unsafe lane change, it happens to all of us at times. Problem is what happens next. She changes lanes and pulls up next to him on his passenger side, ranting and raging wanting him to roll down his window so she can yell at him (they're traveling at 40mph). Wisely, he tell his passenger to ignore the crazy lady. Which really pisses her off. Now she decides to cut him off and tries to pull in front of him. Nope, cut to short, she hooks his front bumper with her rear bumper. When the vehicles separate, his rear swings and hits her car. So, her position is everything is his fault, he should have slammed on his brakes and missed her, and NO WAY should she have to pay to fix the rear of his truck from where it swung and hit her when the bumpers came loose. Oh, and to make things even worse for her, she didn't stop, instead going on her merry way - so our retired Florida judge informs her that according to her own testimony she committed a felony in her home State of Florida. Course, in one ear out the other, she seems to feel she could get credit because she answered the phone when the cops called to ask about the accident. You may wonder how the cops tracked her down since plaintiff was unable to get her license number - seems just before her bumper car incident with plaintiff she was involved in road rage incident with someone else, who was close enough to get her plate # and waited around a half hour or so to add her statement to the police report. Like I said, defendant learned nada from the incident, is convinced she did nothing wrong (well except for leaving the scene, but she was in a hurry to get home, don'cha know)... oh, and she had youngsters in the car, which in her mind justifies pulling up on plaintiff's passenger side and screaming out the window at him. Then when she gets out she wants to tell Doug MM just wouldn't listen, and plaintiff inflated the damages.
2. second half hour case - silly woman suing the guy who bought her a car: these litigants are proving you never get to old to act a fool. Intro, while not particularly funny, is a hoot when you watch the faces of the audience as we hear defendant stopped paying for the car because, according to plaintiff, she wasn't giving him enough sex. Few other laughs... MM calling 51yo overweight plaintiff with no bra and floppy boobs a hot tamale - well, he bought her the car three years ago, maybe she has really let herself go since then... prematurely gray defendant interrupting MM when she says he bought the car for plaintiff after a few weeks - noooo, he argues, it was actually three months after they met on an online dating site... not just a junker, he takes out a loan and buys her a car... 53yo defendant bringing white haired mommy to court... ah well, as I said, the case is nothing new - dueling $5000 cases, dude goes in debt to buy stranger he knew for three months a car, they break up a month later, she kept car, he's on hook for the payments... geez, how dumb can you get!?! She ends up making 13 payments, then stops, but dude has made 39 (or may be a total of 39 have been made, which would mean he's made 26 plus the grand down). Only reason I keep watching is to find out why she's the plaintiff instead of defendant after scamming the dude into buying her a car. She has possession of the car, hasn't made a payment in a year, he's making payments and title in his name... oh, she's suing because he won't sign over the title until she pays off the car and she can't register it since she moved out of state... huh? That dog don't hunt for me, but she acts like it makes perfect sense. On top of everything else, she was caught driving the car uninsured, unregistered and no license, and he's supposed to pay... uh, why? Ah, of course, it was his fault because he didn't send her the title, she didn't know, and, honest, she only drove 1 block for the year it was uninsured, wouldn't you know a cop caught her the one and only time she drove it. MM takes a recess, and when she comes back we find she made a couple calls, dude is telling the truth about making 8 grand in payments already and still owing money. Her solution, he gets the 5 grand for the payments he's already made, but she dismisses the portion of the case for the future payments without prejudice. This will allow him to reclaim the car (remember he still has title) or refile a case for the future payments if he does make them to avoid ruining his credit.

Edited March 10, 2017 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

sun damaged, middle aged, overweight beach bunny with the faded chest tat peeking out from under her top, wearing tight jean clam diggers.

And toothless. You forgot toothless. And someone, somewhere must make a bra that can haul that mammoth chest up. She had to flee the scene of an accident because she had family staying with her and she has the only house key. The cops had to call her and she did them the courtesy of answering their call. How many times did Doug use the word "stupid"?

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

MM calling 51yo overweight plaintiff with no bra and floppy boobs a hot tamale

I think JM was embarassed after asking the age difference there. Calling that husky man-in-drag, who tried to hide her masculine face by flipping around her dyed hair, a "hot tamale" bugged me even more than it did the first time.  I bet when this case first aired, def. had a zillion contacts on his dating site profile. Lots of women want free cars, I bet. "Good Samaritan?" Haha! Now that made him sound like the "fool" JM called him. He's a 53-year old man who drags his elderly mommy into court with him. He's attractive, well-spoken and seemed to be of at least normal intelligence so I don't understand why he's so lacking in self-esteem he feels he needs to buy a car for some overly-dyed hoe (and someone who trades sex for car payments is a prostitute ) he hooks up with online and has known a few weeks or even months. He could get an authentic hooker for way less and wouldn't even have to buy her anything. Yeah, I dated a few men too and like JM, not one offered to bankroll a car for me.

[Jamoche]

Road-rage driver: funny thing about people who claim to be "the most _whatever_ you've ever met" - they're usually the least. And she tops it off with "it is what it is", litigant-speak for "damn, I didn't get away with it this time."

ETA: Second case: mad props to the camera crew for keeping the guy who bought the car centered as he swayed back and forth. That went way beyond nervous fidgeting.

Edited March 9, 2017 by Jamoche

[Jamoche]

Rerun: bleached-blonde late-middle-aged (her boytoy is 60, she's "mmm") black lady (rocking a hairstyle and caftan-ish robe that Bette Davis would have loved) overacting the hell out of her reactions to her ex-"kicking it physically" partner telling his side of the story. Another "they were gifts but now they're loans" story, and I have no idea what he said because she's just that distracting. So much so that the camera spends more time on her than on him. She's gasping and grabbing the podium as if she can hardly stand up from the shock, then preening like a fading movie star from the 50s.

[AngelaHunter]

5 minutes ago, Jamoche said:

Rerun: bleached-blonde late-middle-aged (her boytoy is 60, she's "mmm")

Do they always have to dredge up the most distasteful eps for reruns? The Dollar Store Tina Turner with the ratty Marilyn Monroe wig (that I feared might fly off into the audience with her gyrations and head-shaking) was just horrific. JM found their sexting to be "disgusting." Does no one, even people the ages of these two, ever have a relationship these days? Is it just booty calls and "messing around"? JM annoyed me when she lectured the plaintiff that she deserved better. No, I don't think she deserves anything other than what she got. She's certainly way old enough to know what she's doing and if she wants to pay a man - even one with few teeth - for sex, that's her business.  Gross, all of it.

The real estate people had a story so wacky and convoluted I couldn't even grasp it on second viewing. It seems if someone - anyone, even a total stranger - speaks the same language as you do, you should trust them implicity. Whatever.

Little, pointy-headed twerp who sold the car to guillible plaintiff and thinks he can scribble all over a car title as long as he leaves room for someone else to squeeze another name in - he deserved a big ol' spanking, with a paddle.

[quarkuud]

Quote

Actually, his picture show place in reasonable shape, but admits carpet was ripped and smelled of wet dog - but hey he lived there three years and this doesn't look like expensive carpet when new. Sooo... never really gave notice and carpet needs replacing. How much should he be on the hook for?

I just saw this case.  In my area, carpet is considered a 7 year item.  So even if it was brand new, he shouldn't have owed more than 4/7 of the cost of replacement, not 100%.  I thought at least depreciation on carpet was really common; why didn't JM take that into account?

[meowmommy]

On 3/10/2017 at 6:33 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Do they always have to dredge up the most distasteful eps for reruns?

I would dearly love a week of reruns of Judge Wapner's greatest hits.  Narrated by Doug, of course.  But then Levin couldn't shove his putz in the way.

[Hockeymom]

11 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I would dearly love a week of reruns of Judge Wapner's greatest hits.  Narrated by Doug, of course.

How great would that be? Does anyone remember Judge Wapner on Animal Court?

[SRTouch]

Almost skipped watching, but NEW CASES today

1. SILLY girl adds friend to credit card: plaintiff knew her school chum all of 2-3 years. Yep, once again a litigant put her credit on the line because she's just a kind and good person, and before the end I guaren-darn-tee we hear "it's not because you're such good person, it's because you're a fool (or sometimes stupid)." Friend has no credit, wants a phone, so plaintiff decides to authorize defendant to use her, the plaintiff's, credit line - even getting her a card in defendant's name on her account. In no time flat, defendant maxes out the card and financial genius plaintiff is letting her add charges to another card. Only thing saving these two is the low credit limit on the cards, I think $500 apiece. Typical of some new card holders, defendant goes wild spending like she'll never have to pay the bill... ah, heck, we all know lots of folks who are not young and dumb who do the same thing with credit cards. Anyway, plaintiff says her good friend was plopping down the card all over for any and everything, and never paid a penny back. Big problem for plaintiff's case is that the evidence she brought to court is co-mingled and she can't prove what defendant charged vs her own charges. Ok, let's hear from the defendant... yes, good friend put her on a credit account, but she paid some of it back, oh boy, wishy washy account, she says she paid back increments, maybe a hundred bucks, but didn't really keep track... and at least once gave money to plaintiff's mommy. Uh, sorry girl, but paying back "increments" sounds awfully like minimum payments, which means paying interest with little or nothing going against the principle. Wise up kids or get ready for bankruptcy.  Defendant really has no defense, admits to owing something, insists she paid some back, but has nothing to show how much or when. Plaintiff has her own problems, claims defendant made extra charges, but has no evidence. Question is how much - recess time when MM instructs plaintiff to get online and produce a current and complete statement. Oops, when she produces the statement, turns out plaintiff has reversed some of the charges. Her story is she hasn't received the credit back, yet... then doesn't that mean she brought the suit early? And what's the basis for reversing the charges, anyway? You can reverse fraudulent charges, not charges when someone you authorized to use the card uses it then won't pay. Perfect time to break out the "dirty hand" doctrine and give plaintiff nada. Ah, instead MM lectures her, then gives plaintiff the amount defendant agrees she owes.
2. Started to skip (dog attack) but then started to watch when story was defendant was asleep on park bench. ah, well, lame story, all plaintiff can really say is defendant had head down and was wearing sunglasses. According to intro it's all a scam, there was no fight, lady left with a uninjured dog and came back later with a bleeding dog claiming a fight happened. Nope, her sleeping dude on bench story doesn't offset dumb owners with untrained pit bull mix pups. From her story there should be multiple bite marks on the vet report, but I'm done and zip ahead. I stop when I see MM reading something. As so often happens, intro apparently had little resemblance to testimony. No major bleeding, no defendant claiming scam. Apparently, defense was actually it was little scuffle not worth vet visit, so why am I on hook for $600 vet bill. Ok, maybe so, vet didn't find multiple bites, but did find injuries. I'm with MM on this... if there's been a scuffle, it's not unreasonable to take a dog in to be checked out, and $600 isn't an outrageous bill for emergency vet care. Nah, in fact defendants started making payments, but then stopped after a paying $65. Ah well, defendant admitted to letting go of the leash, they have to pay since they lost control of the dog.
3. next up - used car lemon: couple differences from the normal used car deal - no craigslist ad, seller actually is a dealer, and gave a warranty - only 30 days, but still, a warranty. Just to let us feel something familiar, both sides came to court without copies of the contract they're fighting about. According to plaintiff, car had problems from the beginning, and she was complaining the first week. She says car died, and engine light lit up, but when she complained dealer refused to do anything at first, saying he didn't work on foriegn cars. Sure would be nice if someone had brought a copy of the contract and warranty... MM takes a recess and sends dealer out to get a fax of the warranty, which he says was 30 days and buyer says was three months - they also have widely different takes on how much time passed before she complained about a problem, either a week or several months. Oh, and dealer tries to dodge providing the warranty by instructing MM about the NY lemon laws - and we all know how much a judge LOVES to have litigants teach them points of law. As we go to commercial I figure dealer is lying through his teeth, otherwise he would have the contracts ready to whip out and say, see, judge, 30 days. But when we back it turns out it WAS a 30 day warranty. Lady, it hurts your case when you have to admit you're wrong about the warranty, now everybody is wondering about your week versus his several months story. Her story now has him making multiple repairs, but failing to get the engine light to turn off. Very possible, when the light comes one and you hook it to a machine, you get a multiple choice list of things that could be wrong. A good mechanic uses the list as a starting point and tracks down and fixes the problem(s). Not so good mechanic starts off replacing everything on the list, starting with cheapest to most expensive, until the light goes off. Oh, and the deal with those idiot lights is will go off when you disconnect the battery to work on the car, but come back on after you start driving again and the sensor has time to re-find the problem. Sounds like this guy falls in the not so good category. Now he's strung her along for months repairing one thing after another, but never getting that cotton pickin' check engine light to stay off. Finally, according to her, he decides enough is enough, he's done enough to cover the warranty, it's now her problem. Nope, she says, car was never right, he should undo the sale and return her money. Ok, our not so good mechanic here says he fixed the car because the light was off when she picked up the car, then she'd have the car for a month or two and bring it back lit up again. Again, no timeline evidence, since apparently he doesn't bother with work orders when doing warranty work. More he talks, more I want to give plaintiff want she wants. Ok, maybe not completely undo the deal since she had the clunker for 9 months, but then that was 9 months filled with aggravation and more trips to the shop than anyone should have to put up with. Ah, but plaintiff has her own paperwork problems - supposedly had car diagnosed long ago by someone else, but when MM looks the estimate is 3 days old and plaintiff starts dancing around. Arghh another time where nobody wins the case, but one side is the bigger loser. This time, plaintiff failed to prove the problem that finally killed the car was the same one she initially complained of all those many months ago. She came to court with an obvious fake estimate where she should have gotten an independant second opinion long long ago. Course, in hallterview she crying that she didn't have a chance to tell her story, and he lied... no, you had too much to say and not enough evidence to PROVE you case.

Final thought is I wonder just how much different a 2006 Passat is from an "American" car, as this guy talked like it was a big deal that it was a "foriegn" car. Hmmm I wonder where her passat was made. As I remember, Volkswagen had a Pennsylvania plant until the mid 80s, then a plant in Mexico, and today a Chattanooga plant. Not sure of dates, or what was made where, but pretty sure some passat are/were made in Tennessee.

Edited March 13, 2017 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

SILLY girl adds friend to credit card:

I hear college people saying, "There was never NO problem," and I zone out. This is the future - illiterate college graduates and professionals. Plaintiff was a lying scam artist trying to collect twice what she was owed due to her scamming the CC company and who mistook JM for an idiot. I'm sorry she got anything back and her badly-fitting burgundy wig didn't help anything.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Started to skip (dog attack) but then started to watch when story was defendant was asleep on park bench.

Both defs were unbearable in their own ways and unlike them, plaintiff takes her dog to the vet when it's injured and is perfectly right to do so. And saliva from an animal that eats garbage (among other nasty things) and licks its butt? Not on my wounds, thank you very much. Maybe their mouths aren't teeming with as much bacteria as is a cat's mouth, but so what? I'm sure someone can scientifically prove its healing properties, but I'll use Polysporin myself.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

next up - used car lemon: 

I was so transfixed at how the plaintiff remembered to put on a ton of sparkly eyeshadow, lashes and carefully done hair - did she think this was an audition? -  but not to bring the contract over which she was suing (another one who thinks JM is a gullible dummy - "Trust me, judge. It was 90 days.") I had a hard time concentrating on the case. The fact that def, who is a car dealer and knows just what he's being sued for, couldn't be bothered to bring his copy of the contract was laughable.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

this guy talked like it was a big deal that it was a "foriegn" car.

Seriously. We're not talking Maserati here, and 11 year old cars have been known to have problems. I didn't hear what the mileage was, but I'm pretty sure it had to be over 100,000 miles. Who would expect a problem?

Edited March 13, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I hear college people saying, "There was never NO problem," and I zone out. This is the future - illiterate college graduates and professionals. Plaintiff was a lying scam artist trying to collect twice what she was owed due to her scamming the CC company and who mistook JM for an idiot. I'm sorry she got anything back and her badly-fitting burgundy wig didn't help anything.

I want a "Cadillac converter."  

How do we know lying plaintiff doesn't have pending chargebacks for the items MM awarded her?  She should have been tossed out for being a lying scammer.

Third plaintiff should also have been tossed out for lying--oh, there was no contract, just a receipt.   Except there was a contract and the warranty was stated in it.  She lost on the merits but she should have lost just for being a lying liar who lies.

[AKA...CJ86]

3 hours ago, meowmommy said:

How do we know lying plaintiff doesn't have pending chargebacks for the items MM awarded her?  She should have been tossed out for being a lying scammer.

 

Another one of those cases better suited for JJ.

[SRTouch]

1. bad choppers: plaintiff is suing for nonpayment for services rendered - the services rendered in this case was making some dentures. Plaintiff made some dentures for some of defendant's patient - defendant is a dentist. Plaintiff says dentist refuses to pay - defendant says yeah, despite repeated fitting attempts, the dentures just don't fit, and he almost lost his patients over the uncomfortable teeth. Plaintiff argues that defendant made the impressions, plaintiff made the dentures to match the impressions, and, in fact, defendant never contacted him complaining there was a problem with the fit. We get a little chuckle when plaintiff's witness comes up. MM (asking witness) "what is your relationship to him (plaintiff)?" Plaintiff butts in "she's the office manager." Witness "yes, I work there, and I... we're married." Ah well, if plaintiff is correct that he did the work and defendant not only never complained or gave him a chance to make changes, but then even refused to return the ill fitting dentures, he should win. Office manager/wife says part of her job was to deliver the dentures, and when she asked about payment defendant was verbally abusive and refused to pay. Course, defendant has different story and says plaintiff is lying through his teeth. And, gotta say, defendant's story makes sense at first. He admits to being very picky, so may be hard to please. But, like I said, his story makes sense, while plaintiff's doesn't. Ah, but why not just give the partially completed dentures back when plaintiff said pay or give them back? Plaintiff says if defendant had just returned the partially completed dentures and paid for the work that had been completed there would have never been a lawsuit. Dude, you just lost us! His answer, he refused to return the incomplete dentures because he was afraid plaintiff would go ahead and complete the job and bill it as a completed job. Dude, you can't hire someone to do a job, stop halfway through, then refuse to allow them to complete the job and not pay. If that was a legitimate concern, document the hell out of it and take pictures, and if your fears come true you have a slam dunk victory when he sues for nonpayment. Dude owes for at least the work he admits was done... but part 2 of his defense is that he paid for 2 of the 3 partially completed dentures. That's a whole nother issue... as these litigants don't even agree how many jobs were unpaid. Defendant has work orders showing only one of the three jobs was unpaid, while plaintiff says there were 4 orders unpaid. In a little side issue, in complaint plaintiff accused defendant of antisemitism, but backs off that in court. MM is a little put off by both sides, but in the end accepts defendant's invoices showing 1 unpaid work order, orders defendant to pay $40 for the unpaid work, court costs, and the return of the 3 partially complete dentures.
2. bad pool man: lady hires long time neighbor to open her pool for the season and they end up in a feud. Plaintiff owns a pool maintenance company, says he did work for her and wants to be paid. Defendant, neighbor and owner of the pool, says when he was done her pool water looked terrible. (Nowadays I'm living in Oklahoma, but I was born and raised in the Central Valley of California, so know a thing or three about pools. A fairly common problem with pools is algae, which can seem to show up overnight and turn the water into ugly pond water... especially common when the pool hasn't been maintained for awhile, like during winter and the weather warms up. Usually no biggy, shock the pool with extra chlorine and you're good to go in a couple days. Course, in bad cases, or if your pool chemistry is really out of whack, you may have to partially drain the pool to get the right chemical balance and the process may take awhile. Pool in question was in bad shape, so needed more than a customary "getting ready for summer" service. Anyway, pool guy may have done everything right and have her pool look like sh*t. Doesn't take long to get an idea of the problem. Plaintiff sounds reasonable, but probably would have charged more if he wasn't doing the work for a long time neighbor and friend. Heck, everything he's saying matches what I would expect. Defendant, not so reasonable... she can't keep her mouth shut and has to interrupt and add her two cents worth during plaintiff's testimony. At one point when pool guy describes the water as brown she jumps in to argue the color. MM asks her if the water was brown, defendant doesn't answer, and wants to preempt plaintiff's testimony with her own narrative. Apparently defendant had shopped the job around and been told by other pool companies that they could have the pool ready in a day, so after 5 days big kerfuffle because it's not ready - yeah a day if the pool has been maintained, but a week to 10 days not unheard of or unreasonable for a dirty pool. Obnoxious defendant really irritating to me once she starts talking. Good grief, she's going to say what she wants and ignores 90% of the questions. I would say higher percentage, but she does answer when asked if she ever owned a pool. Nope, first time pool owner talking to a Florida judge who has probably had pools for years and years. Definitely doesn't help that this is another case where dude did some work, customer was dissatisfied, and now customer refuses to pay for the work that was done. Dude even sent a couple bills and letters registered mail, which she ignored. Sad thing is that if pool guy did what he says, pool could look terrible but in two days the pool would have been ready after a final cleaning and chemical check. Case pretty much over. MM tells defendant she doesn't know what she's talking about and orders her to pay plaintiff what he's asking. MM stands and starts to leave... but wait, there's the countersuit. Apparently someone called the city and reported an uncovered outdoor electrical outlet. That's even what defendant says... "someone" reported it. So since she was having construction done, a code enforcer showed up to reinspect for other safety violations. Circumstantial evidence carries more weight in a civil case, but we don't even have to go there because plaintiff freely admits he made the call. Now, all of a sudden, defendant's property is put under a microscope and stuff that has been fine for years is wrong and code violations... like 8 foot bushes have to be trimmed back to 3 feet because it's a corner lot. Again, MM asks defendant if the code says the bushes were to tall, and she ignores the question and says what she wants to say. Hmmm, not sure she gets to sue because he decides to complain and the city starts enforcing ordinances that have been ignored. Yeah, petty and childish to complain just to make trouble for her, but if the complaints are valid how does he have to pay for complaining. Nope, zip on the countersuit.
3. bad used car deal: sour puss plaintiff wants to undo a car deal. Car is 2001 ford expedition. Oh dear, she smells antifreeze, but after a "quick" test drive she buys the thing anyway, because this kind stranger tells her it's good to go. She says it turned out to be a bad heater core. She buys a heater core and a friend was going to install it. (I drove a pickup three years with a bad heater core - just plugged the hose at the firewall and went without a heater.) Apparently she was told it wouldn't pass inspection with a bad heater core, seems odd to me that a heater core would even come up in a safety inspection. Anyway, in their jurisdiction, by law she has to have the inspection done in 7 days and she doesn't. (Can't register it til the inspection, so she never registers it.) 19 days after purchase, still no inspection, car dies - believe it or not while she's on the way to Walmart to buy tools to fix the heater core (with her three kids). Uh, anyone buying this story? I suppose if she let all the coolant leak out the engine would overheat and the car die, but that means she was driving for almost three weeks without adding coolant knowing there was a leak after 3 days. Ignoring the usual "AS IS" used car mantra, I can't see how she can undo the deal without some strong lemon laws in her jurisdiction after driving it knowing get about a leak and doing nothing. Ah, MM knows this stuff, and she informs us that her state, Massachusetts, has some of the strongest lemon laws around - but to take effect she HAS to get that inspection within 7 days... which she didn't do. If she had gotten the inspection, MM tells us, she could undo the deal and get her money back within 14 days of the purchase. Pretty simple, 7 days to get the inspection, if it fails get your money back if you tell seller it failed within 14 days. She ignored the law, but wants the law to protect her from her bad decisions and has a sob story about being a single mom with no car and health issues. Hey, I might say undo the deal, but by her own testimony, defendant gave her a running car and now the engine is fried - probably because she drove it with no coolant. Then she tries to rewrite the law, and she tells MM that the law is she has 30 days - she just doesn't have a copy of that with her today (oh, and she quoted the law correctly earlier in her testimony). Nope, that little ploy wipes out the sympathy card (which wouldn't have won her case, anyway) and now the wah wah single mom with MS riding the bus story is suspect. Defendant prevails...

Edited March 14, 2017 by SRTouch
Spelling

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

bad choppers:

Ugh, plaintiff thinking that lying about the def. making Jewish slurs would help win the case, but turns out she's a big ol' liar. That kind of shit really pisses off JM. She found for the plaintiffs, but her disapproval of their unnecessary lying emanating off her in waves. Pretty damned tacky. What, does everyone think if someone calls you a name (my mother always taught us that "Sticks and stones" etc. but nowadays name-calling seems to be a capital offense that lets you win cases on that alone.) you automatically become entitled to whatever you're asking for?

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

bad pool man: 

Def. was a mouthy and total bitch on wheels who, for some unfathomable reason, thinks she's adorable. Her hubby refused to show up, not because he doesn't want to deal with her petty BS, but because he needs to work and support her. This kind of case makes me so happy I never had to deal with the public on my job. Lady, did you not think about doing anything with that mess on your head before appearin here? Maybe get hubby to do a little overtime? Anyway, she loses and justice is served.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

bad used car deal: sour puss plaintiff wants to undo a car deal.

OMG, do none of the litigants here ever watch this show? Usually, someone buys a 16-year old bucket of bolts, they're stuck with it. "As is" people! But plaintiff is really lucky because in Mass. you can undo the deal if you have the heap inspected within 7 days of purchase if the car fails inspection. She can't be bothered doing that because - whatever -  and should get all her money back because she is ill and has three kids and no car, etc etc.  Sorry, but sob stories don't place you above the laws everyone else has to follow. Maybe next time she'll get an ancient hoopty inspected before she decides to pay for it and make it hers. Want a warranty, go to a dealer.

Edited March 14, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[teebax]

I hated the defendant in the pool case and the plaintiff in the car case.

Pool lady just has to get in there how she spent $100k on the remodel so could definitely afford the pool work. The way I see it, she blew her load and was nickel and diming the pool guy. MM is right; she didn't know anything about pools. No wonder the plaintiff bad mouthed her. She's a female dog. If she'd been civil, he wouldn't have ratted her out to the city, too. 

Expedition lady thinks laws don't apply to her because she has procreated and has an illness. I can't stand people like this. You're in the best state for used car protection and can't be arsed to follow those few steps? As soon as she mentioned her kids in the back seat I knew she would play the sympathy card. Bye, Felicia.

I have a coworker who has a four-year-old daughter. Apparently she's the first person in history to have a kid. You know the type. She's late every day because her snowflake has to go to daycare. Never mind all the other coworkers who have kids and show up to work on time. I can't mention anything wrong in my life without her saying something like, "Imagine how much harder it'd be if you had a kid to support." I know how much harder it would be, you insufferable ass. That's why I don't have kids.

Anyway, that plaintiff reminded me of my coworker. I loved what MM said to her. Having problems doesn't mean you get a pass on your requirements under the law.

Edited March 14, 2017 by teebax

[AngelaHunter]

16 minutes ago, teebax said:

I loved what MM said to her. Having problems doesn't mean you get a pass on your requirements under the law.

Okay, I'm not a doctor, but is it possible to have no clue that you have MS until after having a third child? And I took a bus to work for about 10 years because I couldn't afford to pay rent and have a car. Someone else should have been responsible for that, I feel. And we know our feelings should take precedence over all else. This is where I love "I don't care about your feelings" JJ.

[teebax]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Okay, I'm not a doctor, but is it possible to have no clue that you have MS until after having a third child? And I took a bus to work for about 10 years because I couldn't afford to pay rent and have a car. Someone else should have been responsible for that, I feel. And we know our feelings should take precedence over all else. This is where I love "I don't care about your feelings" JJ.

I no longer watch JJ, but I think MM is holding her own in the not caring department.  I like that she's finally calling people out on their stupidity.

[AngelaHunter]

7 minutes ago, teebax said:

 I like that she's finally calling people out on their stupidity.

Oh, she's been saying, "You're a fool!" for quite some time now, especially when litigants hit her triggers: Pathetic women shoveling money at worthless men, people telling her lies that a 5-year old would see through, and anyone calling her "Miss." :p

[howiveaddict]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Okay, I'm not a doctor, but is it possible to have no clue that you have MS until after having a third child? And I took a bus to work for about 10 years because I couldn't afford to pay rent and have a car. Someone else should have been responsible for that, I feel. And we know our feelings should take precedence over all else. This is where I love "I don't care about your feelings" JJ.

I deal with MS patients all the time.  It can come on later.  Also, she mentioned having to go get 5 day treatments. These are 5 days of steroids.   That is not every week but usually once or twice a year when she has exacerbations. Also, there is medication you can get at home to prevent exacerbations.  Also if she has MS, she is probably on Medicaid and disability. She did not mention needing car to go to work.  In my state, Medicaid patients can get cab transportation paid for by the state to go to Dr appointments.  We used to have an electric wheelchair bound lady come in for a  treatment for something via wheelchair van, afterwards ride her wheelchair to the nearby Owls to play bingo, then electric wheelchair back to the hospital, to medicaid wheelchair van back home.

[meowmommy]

19 minutes ago, howiveaddict said:

 Also if she has MS, she is probably on Medicaid and disability. 

Not necessarily.  I've worked with nurses who have MS.  It all depends on at what point they're at in the pattern of remissions and exacerbations.  

56 minutes ago, teebax said:

I no longer watch JJ, but I think MM is holding her own in the not caring department.  I like that she's finally calling people out on their stupidity.

What's frustrating is that she calls them out on their stupidity but she lets them slide anyway.  And I'm really frustrated that she's had a lineup of lying liars this week and hasn't penalized them for lying.  I would never want MM to go full JJ and disregard the law when she doesn't like someone, but I'd still like there to be some consequences for being a pernicious prevaricator.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, howiveaddict said:

I deal with MS patients all the time.  It can come on later.

Thank you!

 

1 hour ago, howiveaddict said:

Also if she has MS, she is probably on Medicaid and disability.

I'm sure she is. How many people do we see here who do heavy construction and landscaping and boat-building who are disability for their bad backs?

[howiveaddict]

59 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Not necessarily.  I've worked with nurses who have MS.  It all depends on at what point they're at in the pattern of remissions and exacerbations.  

She didn't mention needing the car to go to work, though.  Nothing against her and being disabled.  I just don't get how people can buy hoopsties and then sue when they don't run.